The British Army could be reduced to its smallest size in nearly 250 years, taking its overall troop level to just 50,000 soldiers, a former Government defence adviser has warned.
A report by the respected Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) suggests that defence budgets may be slashed by 10 per cent during the next parliament, shrinking personnel for the three Armed Forces by as many as 42,000.
Britain’s military appears once again in line for massive culls after the next general election because of the continuing austerity drive and a lack of commitment by any of the major parties to protect defence spending, Rusi said.
Downing Street has been forced to deny that David Cameron and George Osborne, the Chancellor, are at “loggerheads” over whether to maintain the Nato target of committing two per cent of the nation's finances to defence.
But ministers’ reluctance to commit to the target was made clear,
Regular Army soldiers are already being reduced from 102,000 to 82,000 and a new defence review under the next government could see numbers cut again by around 40 per cent, Rusi warned.
It would mean the smallest Army since the 1770s, when Britain lost the American colonies.
The report comes ahead a crucial debate in the House of Commons on Thursday when Tory MPs are expected to push for a vote to force the Prime Minister Cameron into a commitment on defence spending.
Tensions over the £36 billion defence budget are high at
and the threat from Isil in Iraq and Syria is growing.
US President Barack Obama and his military chiefs have already expressed concerns over further cuts in Britain’s defence and warned it could damage the Army's ability to fight future campaigns.
Last week, the head of the America’s Army, Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno, told the Telegraph he was “concerned” about suggestions Britain may not maintain the Nato target.
Downing Street denied a report that Mr Cameron was angry at Mr Oborne’s apparent refusal to sign up to maintaining the financial commitment for another parliament.
Refusing to discuss the pledge, Mr Hammond told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show: "We will have a strategic defence and security review at the beginning of the next parliament and we will set out our plans then.
"I can’t tell you what will be in the Conservative manifesto, and I can’t prejudge the outcome of the security and defence review that will take place after the next election. We will protect the integrity and the strength of our armed forces."
Mr Hammond indicated the Prime Minister would be reluctant to cut regular army numbers if reelected, saying Mr Cameron did not want to "preside over any further cuts in our Armed Forces".
Next week, as many as 30 Conservative MPs led by John Baron, the MP for Basildon and Billericay who himself served in the Army, are expected to rebel against the government in order to put pressure on the leadership over the proposed and future cuts.
The Rusi report was written by the organisation’s director of UK defence policy, Professor Malcolm Chalmers, who is also a special adviser to the parliamentary joint committee on the national security strategy and was a Cabinet Office advisor for the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review.
He predicts “optimistic” and “pessimistic” scenarios for the future of the military based on analysis of the three major political parties’ overall spending plans.
He warns that while health, schools and foreign aid budgets are likely to be protected no party has committed to protect defence.
He said: “In either scenario, the result will be a remarkably sharp reduction in the footprint of defence in UK society over a decade.”
Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, said the report made "sober reading" and warned Britain's "operational readiness" could be damaged.
"In a squeezed Defence budget, expenditure on equipment will always take priority over manpower numbers.”
But he added: "I think pressure is beginning to mount on the Government to recognise that there might be some votes in Defence after all. People are quite right to be concerned about our overall security, given present world circumstances."
Andy Smith, chief executive officer of the UK National Defence Association, added: “If the Government allows the British Army to shrink to a 250-year low, it would demonstrate a shameful lack of commitment to the Defence of the Realm.
“We do not need a huge army but we certainly need an army that enables us to secure our homeland and our international interests.
“Military strength guarantees political influence, and we certainly wouldn't have any influence at all with an army of just 50,000.
“It would put the United Kingdom in a potentially perilous situation and would represent political failure by our leaders on a monumental scale.”
Prof Chalmers said spending plans outlined in the last Autumn Statement suggest that spending on government departments could fall from 17.4 per cent of GDP to 12.6 per cent of GDP by 2019/2020 and unprotected departments would be hit hardest.
Because of commitments to some defence spending, personnel would once again bear the brunt, he warned.
Even on the optimistic outlook, where spending is protected on a par with health or schools, that could see total defence personnel fall from around 145,000 to 130,000 by the end of the decade.
In the pessimistic scenario, budgets would be cut by 10 per cent and numbers would fall to 115,000.
However, the Government is currently pledging that spending on defence equipment will increase by one per cent annually over the next parliament.
If that is maintained, Prof Chalmers said, then a worst case scenario could see troop numbers fall to 103,000 – a drop of 29 per cent.
He warns as in the last round of cuts, the Royal Navy will be protected because of the need for personnel for the planned new aircraft carriers, then the Army will take the lion’s share and could be slashed to just 50,000.
In the 1640s, at the height of the Civil War, Oliver Cromwell’s army stood at 40,000.
Professor Chalmers said: “The final budgetary settlement will be one of the most strongly contested elements of this year’s Spending Review.
“In contrast to the health, schools and international development budgets, none of the major parties has committed to protect the defence budget.
“Yet the MoD could face a substantial funding gap even on its own planning assumptions of 1 per cent real annual growth in equipment spending and the protection of non-equipment spending at baseline levels.”
He concluded: “In reality, the prospects for the defence budget remain closely tied to wider economic growth.
“The government is not yet convinced that strategic security risks are high enough to justify an exemption for defence from austerity.”
