US General says British Army less than Par?!?!?!?

[Finningley Boy]

US general warns British Army is no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force, sources say | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11690425/US-general-warns-British-Army-no-longer-regarded-level-fighting-force-sources-say.html)

The linked article caught my eye, not literally but you get the picture I'm sure.

FB

[NutLoose]

Errrr, not just the Army.
But tell me something we didn’t already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carry’s on scrapping ours.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

[Asturias56]

Still one of the biggest spenders on defence - the problem is very little seems to arrive for the money invested.

I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy

[sir]

No disrespect to anybody serving but I don’t doubt there’s some truth in that. Nothing to do with the military personnel, but rather the goverment taking its eye off the ball and not ensuring we have the strength we need through investment. I’m about as woke and lefty as most ordinary people can get, but I’d prefer an oversized military with a more than adequate defence capability and the reserve to muck in overseas to defend our interests at arms length.

Swiss approach, but with additional reach for me Clive.

[Ninthace]

All to do with the Treasury thinking that the Peace Dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall was an annual saving to be taken, rather than a one off.

[NutLoose]

No disrespect to anybody serving but I don’t doubt there’s some truth in that. Nothing to do with the military personnel, but rather the goverment taking its eye off the ball and not ensuring we have the strength we need through investment. I’m about as woke and lefty as most ordinary people can get, but I’d prefer an oversized military with a more than adequate defence capability and the reserve to muck in overseas to defend our interests at arms length.

Swiss approach, but with additional reach for me Clive.

Since the end of the Cold War the Uk Government has seen the military as a cashcow to milk for their other pet projects, to the decline of a capable force able to defend this Country.
The argument that the equipment can do XYZ better than in 1945 and on is no excuse when you have say 5 ships and the need to operate in 7 areas. Or stockpiles of enough Ammunition to last a couple of days assuming the enemy decides to play by our rule book and go Nuclear, suddenly that all falls by the wayside when you see the war in Ukraine..
As the Army reserve website states, become a reserve for a commitment of as little as 19 days a year. A reserve is just that, a Government scheme to bolster the military manpower figures on the cheap, yes they are ex service personnel on the whole and yes no doubting their abilities and dedication, but 19 days a year a full time professional soldier it does not make. Skill sets are perishable and if not maintained they begin to slip.

,,

[chevvron]

All to do with the Treasury thinking that the Peace Dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall was an annual saving to be taken, rather than a one off.
Plus contractors 'milking' MOD costs as much as possible; how much does it cost nowadays to supply a new lightbulb via a contractor rather than going to B & Q?

[melmothtw]

Still one of the biggest spenders on defence - the problem is very little seems to arrive for the money invested.

I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy

A lot of that spending goes on the nuclear deterrent though. Not saying we shouldn't have it, but it does rather skew the numbers when comparing against other nations' spending.

[rattman]

A lot of that spending goes on the nuclear deterrent though. Not saying we shouldn't have it, but it does rather skew the numbers when comparing against other nations' spending.

Was litterally about to type the same thing, UK has to spend a substantial amount on its nuclear deterent. In certain ways see similarities to the situation that russia is in, but without the massive and endemic corruption. Russia has to a spend a large percentage on nuclear capabilities. Both the UK and russia try to do everything in house, UK in this situation goes domestic even when buying from overseas is probably going to work out cheaper and better in the long term

UK has a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget

[NutLoose]

Throw in two carriers with insufficient aircraft to fully man them, nor sufficient ships to protect them.
It is all well and good needing fellow NATO countries to provide aircraft and ships to support them, but by the stupid decision not to make them angled deck and cat capable, you instantly crippled them to the types that can operate and limit future aircraft acquisition to operate from them.
Top that off with if you ever have another Falklands type Scenario we would be on our own re support ships or aircraft.
I understand the logistics of projecting airpower, but one good torpedo and the ship is gone, along with a damned good percentage of our F35 fleet.

As for the Nuclear sub fleet, it is the one thing that would hopefully prevent Russia ever making good on its threats of nuking us, as they would be assured of a reply in kind targeting their Cities. Something their propogandists appear to skip over in all their bluster.

..

[Bing]

Of course the Army's problems aren't helped by spending around £14 Billion on armoured vehicle programmes, none of which have produced serviceable vehicles. Which makes anything the other two services have spent on equipment this century look like value for money.

[Sleeve Wing]

Agree we are spreading it too thin. Something to be said for the Swiss approach now we are no longer a world power whether we think so or not.
Time to start closing motorways now and again I think.............. !! :ugh:

[golfbananajam]

Errrr, not just the Army.
But tell me something we didn’t already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carry’s on scrapping ours.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

If I understand it correctly, our European neighbors who are also NATO members are ramping up spending got meet their NATO spending commitments 9as encouraged by the USA), which UK already does and more.

[NutLoose]

There is a difference between spending and actual forces, you can spend a fortune on extra kit that is late, over budget or cancelled, while at the same time reducing manpower and flogging off the crown jewels. The two do not necessarily balance each other out.
Poland has just ramped up their spending to 4% GDP

https://tvpworld.com/65942560/poland-to-allocate-4-pct-of-gdp-to-military-spending-in-2023-pm

[Not_a_boffin]

Errrr, not just the Army.
But tell me something we didn’t already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carry’s on scrapping ours.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

Number 1 - the article is purely based on quotes by "defence sources". The veracity of this probably depends on the "defence source" and their objective. Not least when the actual article (deliberately?) suggests that the French are Tier 1, the Germans Tier 2 and the UK "barely Tier 2". It's almost as if these "Defence sources" are deliberately trying to influence the ongoing refresh of the SDSR, which is being done as a consequence of the unpleasantness ongoing to our east. Our European allies are only just beginning to increase defence spending and they are - Poland excepted - some way away from ramping up purchases. German armed forces readiness is publically acknowledged to be laughable and I'm fairly certain the French have done less in terms of formation manoeuver training and ops than we have.

The lack of depth in our warstocks is something that SoS has publically noted and committed to fixing - trouble is you can't just turn the ammo delivery switch on just like that. Similarly if you've been paying attention, he's also noted that the Army in particular has lost its edge in certain areas (indirect fires, organic AD) - often by hanging on to cap badge regiments rather than prioritising capability.

The real issue the Army faces is answering the question "what is it for?". If the answer to that question is to provide an armoured division in Eastern Europe, one has to ask why that is so, given that between the Russian border and ourselves lie 1500km and half a dozen countries. Including the Germans whose regular army has a strength of 63000 - significantly less than the UK. If they can't be @rsed to defend themselves, why should we?

Still one of the biggest spenders on defence - the problem is very little seems to arrive for the money invested.

I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy

I have yet to see anyone actually back up those perceptions with real study. You can count noses, but you don't know how well supported or available they are.

For a maritime power, global reach is merely common sense. Crazy is trying to recreate something from the 1970s for a completely different world.

[rolling20]

Stop selling off bases for housing and industrial estates.US military leaders have warned that Russia's Severodvinsk-class subs are operating near US coasts.Severodvinsk-class subs have a mix of stealth and striking power that worries US and NATO navies.Why is all our lifting capability concentrated at one base? A few well aimed missiles and our conventional capability would be severed in one go.The 'peace dividend' and ' options for change' sailed a decade ago

[SASless]

If they can't be @rsed to defend themselves, why should we?

Thinking like an American are you?

Remember. a US President reminding NATO Members about the need to meet their Treaty obligations re spending and how ya'll howled, ranted, and whined about that?

Seems the Man was right and his critics not so right.

Face it....the UK Military is short handed, under funded, and downsized to the extent it has become in-effective as a result.

In some things size, numbers, and capability become the difference between victory and defeat.

Quality absent the rest cannot achieve victory.

What ever you must not do is believe your own propaganda....look to history for proof of that....to include recent history as Russia runs up on the rocks of reality in its War in Ukraine.

[air pig]

Plus contractors 'milking' MOD costs as much as possible; how much does it cost nowadays to supply a new lightbulb via a contractor rather than going to B & Q?

Just the same as the NHS and PFI.

[Not_a_boffin]

Thinking like an American are you?

Remember. a US President reminding NATO Members about the need to meet their Treaty obligations re spending and how ya'll howled, ranted, and whined about that?

Seems the Man was right and his critics not so right.

Face it....the UK Military is short handed, under funded, and downsized to the extent it has become in-effective as a result.



Now if I was feeling provocative, I'd say something like "your first sentence is an oxymoron" - but I wouldn't be being serious.

Less of the y'all when you try to ascribe reactions to me. For the record, one of Trumps good points was that he was prepared to say some contentious things - although Europeans relying on the US to defend them and not pulling their weight goes back to Ronnie, Maggie and beyond.

[SASless]

Evidently it is thought by many the British Military needs lots of all sorts which was the topic of the thread.

So is the British Military up to the task of defending the Home Isles and possessions and properly fulfill its role in NATO.....or not?

[Flyhighfirst]

Stop selling off bases for housing and industrial estates.US military leaders have warned that Russia's Severodvinsk-class subs are operating near US coasts.Severodvinsk-class subs have a mix of stealth and striking power that worries US and NATO navies.Why is all our lifting capability concentrated at one base? A few well aimed missiles and our conventional capability would be severed in one go.The 'peace dividend' and ' options for change' sailed a decade ago

It is not a Severodvinsk-class sub. There is no such thing. That is the name of the lead sub in the Yasen class.

What difference would it make (except ramping up costs) to spread transport bases around the UK when one sub could still disable 3 or 4 bases from the same firing position? Having 2 bases a hundred miles apart is just adding cost for my appreciative benefit.

Edited to add that no uk armed forces bases in the UK have deployed missile defences so no matter how many you have they could all be destroyed in a surprise commencement of hostilities.

[rolling20]

It is not a Severodvinsk-class sub. There is no such thing. That is the name of the lead sub in the Yasen class.

What difference would it make (except ramping up costs) to spread transport bases around the UK when one sub could still disable 3 or 4 bases from the same firing position? Having 2 bases a hundred miles apart is just adding cost for my appreciative benefit.

Edited to add that no uk armed forces bases in the UK have deployed missile defences so no matter how many you have they could all be destroyed in a surprise commencement of hostilities.

Severodvinsk-class is the NATO designation old boy. You may have heard of NATO?
Regardless of cost, it makes good sense to not have all your resources in one basket.
​​​​​​​Sounds like you've got the white flag out already.

[langleybaston]

As this is an aviation site, my three ignorant retired MoD civvy questions are in this order:

1 What is the RAF for?
2. Ditto the army
3. Ditto the RN [this one must surely include "maintain and protect the nuclear deterrent 365/24"]

Is there a clear brief statement extant that addresses these questions?

[NutLoose]

1st Defence of the Realm and dependence’s
2nd Defence as part of NATO
3rd to project our influence in the wider world.
4th to drive ambulances, fire engines, to act as NHS staff, to act as Border Force staff, to act as flood relief staff etc etc etc, everything none military that keep getting foisted upon them.

[cynicalint]

As this is an aviation site, my three ignorant retired MoD civvy questions are in this order:

1 What is the RAF for?
2. Ditto the army
3. Ditto the RN [this one must surely include "maintain and protect the nuclear deterrent 365/24"]

Is there a clear brief statement extant that addresses these questions?

LB, Here is link to the Govt pamphlet for the RAF. I'm sure the other 2 services have such documents. Please take into consideration that these are Politico Languages and over-complicate simple matters. but it should give you a good idea. Person for person The RAF is better than any other (Management speak!), it's just that we are too small, too hollowed out and fins it difficult to be in two places at once. The UK forces are not less than par, but too small to be an army, just a small defence force hence Tier 2, but a very good one at that!

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668710/doctrine_uk_air_space_power_jdp_0_30.pdf

The four roles of air power.

• Control of the air secures our freedom of action within the air environment.

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance informs the development of understanding across all environments.

• Attack can coerce and influence actors into changing or maintaining behaviour.

• Air mobility enables movement, manoeuvre and sustainment.

FROM THE RAF WEBSITE
https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/overview/#:~:text=The%20RAF%20works%20with%20partners,surveillance%20 and%20reconnaissance%20(ISR).


Defending the skies of Britain and projecting Britain's power and influence around the world.

The UK and our allies face threats in an uncertain world, from unauthorised aircraft entering protected airspace, to cyber attacks.

RESPOND TO THREATS

Our Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) Force based at RAF Lossiemouth (north east Scotland), RAF Coningsby (eastern England), and the Falkland Islands (south Atlantic), are ready to scramble state of the art Eurofighter Typhoons in minutes to intercept threats.

PREVENT CONFLICT

We identify and manage threats before they materialise through intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). We can rapidly deploy aircraft and personnel around the world to deter conflict and defeat our adversaries if necessary.

We are currently active across four continents with significant operations in Eastern Europe, South Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. Our proximity to unstable regions and potential adversaries provides the air power to curb threats and destabilising behaviour.

WATCH THE SKIES

We use a combination of state-of-art static radar, mobile units, aircraft, and satellites to gather minute-to-minute information on air activity.

Our Air Surveillance and Control Systems Force continuously compile a Recognised Air Picture of the airspace in and around the UK, providing vital early warning of potential threats such as unauthorised aircraft or missiles.

We also monitor threats in space: from space weather and debris that can damage orbiting satellites, to hostile acts from our adversaries.

DELIVER AID

We have the aircraft, the know-how, and the reach to get humanitarian aid, equipment, and people into affected areas quickly.

We support government agencies and emergency services on UK operations.

WORK IN PARTNERSHIP

Air power is most effective in a joint action with other military services such as the British Army and Royal Navy, and with government departments, all working towards a common national goal. We call this a full spectrum approach.
We continuously train and deploy with the armed forces of our NATO allies and global partners in places like Estonia, Romania, and in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Maintaining good relations with our international partners means we can operate from their bases to expand our global reach.
As a world-class air force we also advise and train other air forces to build their capacity to respond to threats and prevent conflict.

[Bbtengineer]

LB, Here is link to the Govt pamphlet for the RAF. I'm sure the other 2 services have such documents. Please take into consideration that these are Politico Languages and over-complicate simple matters. but it should give you a good idea. Person for person The RAF is better than any other (Management speak!), it's just that we are too small, too hollowed out and fins it difficult to be in two places at once. The UK forces are not less than par, but too small to be an army, just a small defence force hence Tier 2, but a very good one at that!

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668710/doctrine_uk_air_space_power_jdp_0_30.pdf

The four roles of air power.

• Control of the air secures our freedom of action within the air environment.

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance informs the development of understanding across all environments.

• Attack can coerce and influence actors into changing or maintaining behaviour.

• Air mobility enables movement, manoeuvre and sustainment.

FROM THE RAF WEBSITE
https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/overview/#:~:text=The%20RAF%20works%20with%20partners,surveillance%20 and%20reconnaissance%20(ISR).


Defending the skies of Britain and projecting Britain's power and influence around the world.

The UK and our allies face threats in an uncertain world, from unauthorised aircraft entering protected airspace, to cyber attacks.

RESPOND TO THREATS

Our Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) Force based at RAF Lossiemouth (north east Scotland), RAF Coningsby (eastern England), and the Falkland Islands (south Atlantic), are ready to scramble state of the art Eurofighter Typhoons in minutes to intercept threats.

PREVENT CONFLICT

We identify and manage threats before they materialise through intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). We can rapidly deploy aircraft and personnel around the world to deter conflict and defeat our adversaries if necessary.

We are currently active across four continents with significant operations in Eastern Europe, South Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. Our proximity to unstable regions and potential adversaries provides the air power to curb threats and destabilising behaviour.

WATCH THE SKIES

We use a combination of state-of-art static radar, mobile units, aircraft, and satellites to gather minute-to-minute information on air activity.

Our Air Surveillance and Control Systems Force continuously compile a Recognised Air Picture of the airspace in and around the UK, providing vital early warning of potential threats such as unauthorised aircraft or missiles.

We also monitor threats in space: from space weather and debris that can damage orbiting satellites, to hostile acts from our adversaries.

DELIVER AID

We have the aircraft, the know-how, and the reach to get humanitarian aid, equipment, and people into affected areas quickly.

We support government agencies and emergency services on UK operations.

WORK IN PARTNERSHIP

Air power is most effective in a joint action with other military services such as the British Army and Royal Navy, and with government departments, all working towards a common national goal. We call this a full spectrum approach.
We continuously train and deploy with the armed forces of our NATO allies and global partners in places like Estonia, Romania, and in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Maintaining good relations with our international partners means we can operate from their bases to expand our global reach.
As a world-class air force we also advise and train other air forces to build their capacity to respond to threats and prevent conflict.

Yeah but none of that really answers the question you replied to.

That’s a whole bunch of what they do.

It just doesn’t answer the spirit of the question which is really why do we need them to do all of that.

What’s the point?

I think we’ve lived in such comfortable times for so long that many of us are losing track of how nasty the world can be. Politicians pointedly included.

[SASless]

Did I miss the part where it states something akin to "Engage and defeat armed aggression targeting the British Population and Territory".

I did see something about "maintain and change" but that seems to omit the real purpose for maintaining the capability to take on and soundly defeat aggressors.

Sadly, the English Channel's value as a saltwater moat has been overtaken by technology.

[BlankBox]

Still one of the biggest spenders on defence - the problem is very little seems to arrive for the money invested.

Its Tory mantra...as long as shareholders are taken care of...job done!

[Toadstool]

Did I miss the part where it states something akin to "Engage and defeat armed aggression targeting the British Population and Territory".

I did see something about "maintain and change" but that seems to omit the real purpose for maintaining the capability to take on and soundly defeat aggressors.

Sadly, the English Channel's value as a saltwater moat has been overtaken by technology.

Yes, you missed it. Nutty pointed it out. Number one is to defend the realm.
How they do that is defined in other documents but, to the original question of why do we have the armed forces, it is to defend the realm. Exactly the same purpose as defined by other countries, albeit with different language.

[old,not bold]

As a long-time ex-Army person, I draw huge comfort for the fact that although the British Army has been reduced to a shadow of what it was, the money saved by that reduction has given the UK 2 really super aircraft carriers, ready for the use of pilots and aircraft from the USofA on account of someone forgot to order enough aircraft and/or train enough pilots to give the carriers any strike capability.

These marine behemoths will project British power around the world, ho, ho, ho. What a pity they only really fulfil the operational requirements of the 1970s. Have they ever both been serviceable at the same time?

I would love to see a table showing how many Challenger 2 tanks, c/w trained crews and ammunition stocks, could have been on the inventory instead of those carriers. It beggars belief that the UK can scrape together only 14 tanks (updated model? Don't think so) to send to Ukraine. But of course the MoD knows that the days of the tank battle are long gone, everyone says so. Except that they haven't, as we now know from Ukraine.

[chevvron]

As a long-time ex-Army person, I draw huge comfort for the fact that although the British Army has been reduced to a shadow of what it was, the money saved by that reduction has given the UK 2 really super aircraft carriers, ready for the use of pilots and aircraft from the USofA on account of someone forgot to order enough aircraft and/or train enough pilots to give the carriers any strike capability.

These marine behemoths will project British power around the world, ho, ho, ho. What a pity they only really fulfil the operational requirements of the 1970s. Have they ever both been serviceable at the same time?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't these carriers ordered during a Labour government?

[Lomon]

Plus contractors 'milking' MOD costs as much as possible; how much does it cost nowadays to supply a new lightbulb via a contractor rather than going to B & Q?
Oooh, I know that one.
We wanted to replace approx 200 lamps as part of a project to modernise. BAe agreed to fund it as a green experiment and after getting quotes from 3 suppliers the cost came in at about £2000.
The muti-national company who had the station maintenance contract objected - saying they had the contractual right to undertake the task and then quoted £15k to do it.

[Not_a_boffin]

Have they ever both been serviceable at the same time?

Yes. Both were actually very active in 2021. QNLZ is at sea today. PWLS will be once her shaft issue is repaired.

I would love to see a table showing how many Challenger 2 tanks, c/w trained crews and ammunition stocks, could have been on the inventory instead of those carriers. It beggars belief that the UK can scrape together only 14 tanks (updated model? Don't think so) to send to Ukraine. But of course the MoD knows that the days of the tank battle are long gone, everyone says so. Except that they haven't, as we now know from Ukraine.

What do you think these CR2 would be doing? Are you suggesting that we hold the things to donate to UKR? Or are you suggesting that the UK should be busy operating in UKR?

In common with many brown jobs, you appear to be under the impression that the army was somehow denuded in order to buy the ships. As opposed to the reality, which is that the army has spectacularly failed to articulate what it is for - and instead, has frittered its resources away on bodged equipment programmes (FRES anyone?) and defending infantry cap badges.

[Finningley Boy]

LB, Here is link to the Govt pamphlet for the RAF. I'm sure the other 2 services have such documents. Please take into consideration that these are Politico Languages and over-complicate simple matters. but it should give you a good idea. Person for person The RAF is better than any other (Management speak!), it's just that we are too small, too hollowed out and fins it difficult to be in two places at once. The UK forces are not less than par, but too small to be an army, just a small defence force hence Tier 2, but a very good one at that!

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668710/doctrine_uk_air_space_power_jdp_0_30.pdf

The four roles of air power.

• Control of the air secures our freedom of action within the air environment.

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance informs the development of understanding across all environments.

• Attack can coerce and influence actors into changing or maintaining behaviour.

• Air mobility enables movement, manoeuvre and sustainment.

FROM THE RAF WEBSITE
https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/overview/#:~:text=The%20RAF%20works%20with%20partners,surveillance%20 and%20reconnaissance%20(ISR).


Defending the skies of Britain and projecting Britain's power and influence around the world.

The UK and our allies face threats in an uncertain world, from unauthorised aircraft entering protected airspace, to cyber attacks.

RESPOND TO THREATS

Our Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) Force based at RAF Lossiemouth (north east Scotland), RAF Coningsby (eastern England), and the Falkland Islands (south Atlantic), are ready to scramble state of the art Eurofighter Typhoons in minutes to intercept threats.

PREVENT CONFLICT

We identify and manage threats before they materialise through intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). We can rapidly deploy aircraft and personnel around the world to deter conflict and defeat our adversaries if necessary.

We are currently active across four continents with significant operations in Eastern Europe, South Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. Our proximity to unstable regions and potential adversaries provides the air power to curb threats and destabilising behaviour.

WATCH THE SKIES

We use a combination of state-of-art static radar, mobile units, aircraft, and satellites to gather minute-to-minute information on air activity.

Our Air Surveillance and Control Systems Force continuously compile a Recognised Air Picture of the airspace in and around the UK, providing vital early warning of potential threats such as unauthorised aircraft or missiles.

We also monitor threats in space: from space weather and debris that can damage orbiting satellites, to hostile acts from our adversaries.

DELIVER AID

We have the aircraft, the know-how, and the reach to get humanitarian aid, equipment, and people into affected areas quickly.

We support government agencies and emergency services on UK operations.

WORK IN PARTNERSHIP

Air power is most effective in a joint action with other military services such as the British Army and Royal Navy, and with government departments, all working towards a common national goal. We call this a full spectrum approach.
We continuously train and deploy with the armed forces of our NATO allies and global partners in places like Estonia, Romania, and in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Maintaining good relations with our international partners means we can operate from their bases to expand our global reach.
As a world-class air force we also advise and train other air forces to build their capacity to respond to threats and prevent conflict.
This doesn't read like a full spectrum approach, it all reads like sanitised jargon to put across an image of efficacy and goodwill. About the only combat role admitted to is air defence, everything else is aid relief, prevention and cooperation with the entire world just about. No mention of Ground Attack, Tactical Strike (strictly defunct since the removal of WE177s), anti-shipping, Interdiction? The tone seems to try and avoid any suggestion that the modern RAF might actually need to go to war again. I wonder what a similar mission statement for the Ukrainian Armed Forces would read like, if the same corporate double speakers that wrote this were awarded the task?

FB

[MPN11]

Sadly, while UK Mil has much excellent kit and individuals, it now sadly lacks mass. As currently constituted, it can only ever really be a skilled adjunct to any significant operational scenario. IMO, YMMV.

Sent from Nostalgic Dinosaur Rest Home.

[NutLoose]

Sadly, while UK Mil has much excellent kit and individuals, it now sadly lacks mass. As currently constituted, it can only ever really be a skilled adjunct to any significant operational scenario. IMO, YMMV.

Sent from Nostalgic Dinosaur Rest Home.

And with that comes the problem that if U.K. PLC finally realise their fopar, the trouble Is they have probably already binned the facilities to house any expansion. Gone are the days of care and maintenance.

[langleybaston]

My sincere thanks to the answers, official, and unofficial, to my #24 question. The official ones impress me not.

My main comment is that the official line acknowledges no limit to the tasks, yet we have systematically [and often very sensibly and virtuously] withdrawn from most of the areas of the globe that were red-coloured.
The other glaring omission is reference to ability to augment rapidly and substantially our peace establishment to a war one.
A root cause of these ills may be our willy-waving membership of the Security Council. Other than the nuclear deterrent [which many others have] such willy-waving is hollow and expensive.

[Baldeep Inminj]

MY first thought about this thread was 'is this really new?' People have been screaming for decades that cuts have gone too far and capabilities have been lost. We have seen many VSO's find their voices once they have taken off the uniform for the last time and ensured the pension was safe, but precious few had the moral courage to say a word whilst still serving. I strongly suspect that this is not a unique British problem either.

Regardless, a solution needs to be found and quickly, as war is the ultimate 'come as you are' event, and the invitation often arrives at very short notice. To that end, I see Ben Wallace stated yesterday that whilst he accepts the Forces are below where they should be (he was specifically referencing the Army IIRC), that buying 'off the shelf' would not safeguard British Industry and was therefore not an option. My personal view is 'Who gives a fc*k?'. Surely the ends justifies the means in this case - get capability ASAP in terms of hardware. Get it from the U.S, Korea, Israel...wherever, just get it and worry about industry afterwards. As for manpower, that is also an issue that needs a pragmatic and probably expensive approach. Pay soldiers more (a lot more), build new housing NOW (I have seen fields turned into Bovis or Persimmon estates in months). Tear up legacy contracts and go to the private sector and get the big boys in who can build immediately and quickly. Make being a soldier something that people will aspire to, rather than being one of the few ways to leave a sinkhole estate.

If you think maintaining a large military is expensive, try losing a war.

Or am I being naiive?

[cynicalint]

Yeah but none of that really answers the question you replied to.

That’s a whole bunch of what they do.

It just doesn’t answer the spirit of the question which is really why do we need them to do all of that.

What’s the point?

I think we’ve lived in such comfortable times for so long that many of us are losing track of how nasty the world can be. Politicians pointedly included.

Agree fully! But what we do is what we are told to do! The Govt tries to cover up the first principle of warfare by weasel words. The first principle of warfare is that its not the taking part that counts, but the...."

[cynicalint]

This doesn't read like a full spectrum approach, it all reads like sanitised jargon to put across an image of efficacy and goodwill. About the only combat role admitted to is air defence, everything else is aid relief, prevention and cooperation with the entire world just about. No mention of Ground Attack, Tactical Strike (strictly defunct since the removal of WE177s), anti-shipping, Interdiction? The tone seems to try and avoid any suggestion that the modern RAF might actually need to go to war again. I wonder what a similar mission statement for the Ukrainian Armed Forces would read like, if the same corporate double speakers that wrote this were awarded the task?

FB
I agree entirely. I did qualify my post with Please take into consideration that these are Politico Languages . We are no longer an Air FORCE, but an Air service to support humanitarian disasters or to cover up Politicians poor decision making, without the means to do so.

[WB627]

What is the point of having £billions worth of equipment, tanks, artillery, planes ships etc if you haven't got the ammunition to use them for more than a few days? Or is that the time need to decant government into safe underground bunkers, before the PM resorts to the nuclear option?

[Bbtengineer]

This doesn't read like a full spectrum approach, it all reads like sanitised jargon to put across an image of efficacy and goodwill. About the only combat role admitted to is air defence, everything else is aid relief, prevention and cooperation with the entire world just about. No mention of Ground Attack, Tactical Strike (strictly defunct since the removal of WE177s), anti-shipping, Interdiction? The tone seems to try and avoid any suggestion that the modern RAF might actually need to go to war again. I wonder what a similar mission statement for the Ukrainian Armed Forces would read like, if the same corporate double speakers that wrote this were awarded the task?

FB

Bingo. It’s all marketing blurb. There is no recognition that we might have to actually fight and why.

Let me try to illustrate what I think a definition of purpose looks like, the “why” we have forces.

“To provide a sufficiently strong conventional deterrence that any individual nation who might otherwise desire to do so is very unlikely to attack us for the next 15 years.

If attacked by conventional means by any such single military power, to have concrete expectation that with existing stocks and personnel we can defend ourselves unilaterally against any such assault for a period of not less than one year. In doing so preventing any loss of control of any land, air or maritime space.”

It might well be the wrong detail. I’m trying to describe purpose rather than offer marketing blurb about capabilities.

What are the armed forces actually there for?

I couldn’t find it in the official material quoted upthread.

Can you?

[cynicalint]

Bingo. It’s all marketing blurb. There is no recognition that we might have to actually fight and why.

Let me try to illustrate what I think a definition of purpose looks like, the “why” we have forces.

“To provide a sufficiently strong conventional deterrence that any individual nation who might otherwise desire to do so is very unlikely to attack us for the next 15 years.

If attacked by conventional means by any such single military power, to have concrete expectation that with existing stocks and personnel we can defend ourselves unilaterally against any such assault for a period of not less than one year. In doing so preventing any loss of control of any land, air or maritime space.”

It might well be the wrong detail. I’m trying to describe purpose rather than offer marketing blurb about capabilities.

What are the armed forces actually there for?

I couldn’t find it in the official material quoted upthread.

Can you?

Neither could I! That is the Govts direction and the RAF statements on what we do. Nothing to do with 'Engaging with His Majesties Enemies and Killing Them!. The whole thing is MBA driven jargon for a business, not a fighting force as we once were. But those documents are now the directing sources for our existence - like it or not. I hate them.
If we 'deliver' our services properly, no-one can complain because they are dead, Customer feedback is useless...:Yes, you killed us successfully. Your delivery was on time and accurate.. My feedback is positive' is not something we expect!

[NutLoose]

Here is a thought re infrastructure, buy back / compulsory purchase Doncaster airport, rename it RAF Finningley, it has hangarage, good runway, newish terminal, central location, decent road access, available gate guardian aircraft, and then move the Voyager fleet up there, thus freeing up more room at Brize and removing the all eggs in one basket problem :p

[T28B]

Esteemed colleagues, please, let us return to the topic at hand.
Rather than move the offending posts, I have removed them as you all know better. :=

[NutLoose]

With all the talk about tanks for Ukraine, the Challenger in the British army and shortage of tank numbers that we are suffering these days, it may surprise you that Vickers actually produced a Leopard based tank with a British turret that just about outclassed everything going including the Challenger..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lye7UHnhqEg

[langleybaston]

This was the pre-Great War slant:

What is the Army For?

On 8th December 1888 Mr Edward Stanhope, Secretary Of State for War, minuted Adjutant-General Viscount Wolseley with what became known as the Stanhope memorandum. This was in reply to the very reasonable question “what is the army for?” In summary, and in order of priority, it was to:

1. Support the civil power in Great Britain

2. Garrison India

3. Garrison all fortresses and coaling stations at war footing

4. Be able to mobilise three Army Corps for home defence

5. Be able to send abroad two complete Corps [EDIT: the BEF in 1914]

[Flyhighfirst]

Here is a thought re infrastructure, buy back / compulsory purchase Doncaster airport, rename it RAF Finningley, it has hangarage, good runway, newish terminal, central location, decent road access, available gate guardian aircraft, and then move the Voyager fleet up there, thus freeing up more room at Brize and removing the all eggs in one basket problem :p

The eggs in one basket problem is more of a size of the country problem. One Russian sub off the east coast could take out both simultaneously. It makes sense when you are talking about spreading out bases in Ohio, Florida and maybe Arizona. This country is too small to have a noticeable effect by spreading out bases. That extra cost could go towards more kit (it won’t of course, but it could).

[ExAscoteer2]

This country is too small to have a noticeable effect by spreading out bases.

The noticeable effect is increased flexibility in operations.

[Lonewolf_50]

1st Defence of the Realm and dependence’s
2nd Defence as part of NATO
3rd to project our influence in the wider world.
4th to drive ambulances, fire engines, to act as NHS staff, to act as Border Force staff, to act as flood relief staff etc etc etc, everything none military that keep getting foisted upon them.
As regards bullet 4: a bit over 30 years ago some wag on our side of the pond coined a term for that - OOTW - Operations Other Than War which was picked up on by our NATO allies in some of the official stuff we worked on when I was working in that capacity. NEO (Noncombatant Evacuation Operations) was one of the biggies back then. Disaster relief. Etc.
On bullet point 2: since the early 90's our own national strategy statement was pretty clear: we will as a rule conduct military operations as a part of a coalition.
That seems to still be the case, and looks to be similar to how the British Armed Forces are organized, trained, and funded.
On bullet point 3. I think this is where the General in the OP cited commentary was expressing some disappointment.
(For my money, him denigrating the capability of our allies when in an official position is bad form).

If you look at the capability and professionalism that the British Army brought to
Operation Desert Storm, to Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) , later to Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom)
I think he realizes that the absolute scale of ground forces may not be available again.

So what? I'd ask the general to look at a map. The UK, if they choose to lean into RAF and RN more heavily, are acting in accordance to their geography and their budgetary/fiscal realities.
We have a lot of other NATO allies who can provide ground forces in Europe should a need to do that arise. From an alliance perspective, it's a bit more expensive and requires more effort to get the British Army to various trouble spots in NATO's AORs.

All in all, I'd rather he'd have not made that glib observation. Of all the allies who have been problem children over the years as regards contributions to the alliance, I'd not put the UK as a part of the problem.
Edited to add: recent estimates of who meets the 2% goal in NATO and who does not, the UK is one of half a dozen who meet it, 24 others do not. (2022 estimates). The general might have considered that before he opened his pie hole. :mad: (I seem to recall that the UK usually meets that target, but I'd need to go over historical data).

[NutLoose]

The eggs in one basket problem is more of a size of the country problem. One Russian sub off the east coast could take out both simultaneously. It makes sense when you are talking about spreading out bases in Ohio, Florida and maybe Arizona. This country is too small to have a noticeable effect by spreading out bases. That extra cost could go towards more kit (it won’t of course, but it could).

But you are not taking into account the bigger picture, Russia looking at the satellite images of Doncaster would probably surmise that they had already nuked the place and move on to the next target.

[SASless]

How thinly do you wish to spread what little you have?

If you start out as a Tier Two Power....should you lose several aircraft of any front line operational type....at what level do you find yourself after the initial strike?

Numbers matter....and the Military has never bee. a for profit enterprise when it comes to costs.

[chevvron]

Here is a thought re infrastructure, buy back / compulsory purchase Doncaster airport, rename it RAF Finningley, it has hangarage, good runway, newish terminal, central location, decent road access, available gate guardian aircraft, and then move the Voyager fleet up there, thus freeing up more room at Brize and removing the all eggs in one basket problem :p
I totally agree, however the owners, Peel, want to build houses on it (much more profitable) so it's a non starter; they already did the same trick with Sheffield airport.
Same applies at Plymouth and many other airports; it's a typical greedy developer's trick; buy an airport, operate it for a couple of years, declare it unprofitable and pass it over to developers.
Looks like Manston has been saved from this, possibly Fairoaks too.

[melmothtw]

I totally agree, however the owners, Peel, want to build houses on it (much more profitable) so it's a non starter; they already did the same trick with Sheffield airport.
Same applies at Plymouth and many other airports; it's a typical greedy developer's trick; buy an airport, operate it for a couple of years, declare it unprofitable and pass it over to developers.
Looks like Manston has been saved from this, possibly Fairoaks too.

Compulsory Purchase Orders in the interests of National Security.

[NutLoose]

Well let them start building houses Chevron and when sufficent decent houses for the married accomodation has been built, then purchase it out from under them. ;)

[Q-SKI]

Would love to be proven wrong, but I believe M&S employ more people than the RAF. A nation of shopkeepers?………

[pax britanica]

Its 2023 , Bad guys stille xist , ie Russia but at the same time they seem to be extremely incompetent .

Uk has an economy and infrastructure on its knees, due to our histroy we have well trained service personnel but always seem to lack the equipment that really need . Why Nimrods not P3s for example Why carriers when we can only hope to infleucne the N Sea , Eastern Atlantic and maybe a bit of the med , someone has already pointed out the tank/AFV catsstrophe

A PM with no wiggle room on money to spend has to amke a choice . More squaddies or more nurses ( ie Defence vs NHS) . A nuclear war is a lose lose and because of Europe geography if you attack Southern England you are also attaching France and vv so why not pool nuke resources with France. , Isnt one of our nuclear subs effectively knackered anyway so we cannot guarantee 24/7 response or attack -however so long as the bad guys dont know which days its down it doest actually matter.

Being out of the EU doesnt mean out of Europe. UK doesnt thave the resources or man power to do much l against any serious country with evil intent against UK and they cannot do much without mass nuclear fallout on France or as has been pointed out go 1500 Kms across Europe to even get to the channel , So why not an EU Army , how far a step away from NATO is that.. I am sure there are the usaul facile comments about lack of back bone in some countries but then again the Czechs Slovaks , Poles and Hungarians would probably be more committed than our troops in such circumstances as they are the front line

So the money has to go on the NHS as theyare the real and present danger .. Over simplification of course but how far away from that choice are we.

[NutLoose]

Well if they get it wrong, then the Nurses will find themselves busy.

[ExAscoteer2]

I Why Nimrods not P3s for example .


Because Nimrod seiously outperformed P3.

[GrahamO]

how much does it cost nowadays to supply a new lightbulb via a contractor rather than going to B & Q?

Whats your hourly rate for leaving your workplace, getting in a car, driving to a B&Q, finding the bulb (assuming they have it), driving back, sorting out an invoice adn then arranging delivery and fitting ?

How much exactly - £100, £200 or you expect the entire thing to be done for 2p ?

[GrahamO]

Because Nimrod seiously outperformed P3.

But was utterly unaffordable after decades of mis-steps, mismanagement and failure by the MoD.

Yes, a Bentley Bentayga is a fantastic choice for a local runabout but a sits unaffordable, then its not really in the running is it ?

[tucumseh]

But was utterly unaffordable after decades of mis-steps, mismanagement and failure by the MoD.




The planned mis-steps and mismanagement, and inevitable failure and the precise reasons, were identified and notified long before the MRA4 contract was let.

The same issues afflicted a sister programme, upon which MRA4 relied, but which was delivered ahead of time, under cost, and to a better spec.

What was the single differentiating factor? The latter programme completely ignored the directives of a 1, 2 and 4 Star. The 4 Star never did learn that when he was asked to sign approval to proceed to development, 5 production sets of avionics had already been delivered!

[Bbtengineer]

Its 2023 , Bad guys stille xist , ie Russia but at the same time they seem to be extremely incompetent .

Uk has an economy and infrastructure on its knees, due to our histroy we have well trained service personnel but always seem to lack the equipment that really need . Why Nimrods not P3s for example Why carriers when we can only hope to infleucne the N Sea , Eastern Atlantic and maybe a bit of the med , someone has already pointed out the tank/AFV catsstrophe

A PM with no wiggle room on money to spend has to amke a choice . More squaddies or more nurses ( ie Defence vs NHS) . A nuclear war is a lose lose and because of Europe geography if you attack Southern England you are also attaching France and vv so why not pool nuke resources with France. , Isnt one of our nuclear subs effectively knackered anyway so we cannot guarantee 24/7 response or attack -however so long as the bad guys dont know which days its down it doest actually matter.

Being out of the EU doesnt mean out of Europe. UK doesnt thave the resources or man power to do much l against any serious country with evil intent against UK and they cannot do much without mass nuclear fallout on France or as has been pointed out go 1500 Kms across Europe to even get to the channel , So why not an EU Army , how far a step away from NATO is that.. I am sure there are the usaul facile comments about lack of back bone in some countries but then again the Czechs Slovaks , Poles and Hungarians would probably be more committed than our troops in such circumstances as they are the front line

So the money has to go on the NHS as theyare the real and present danger .. Over simplification of course but how far away from that choice are we.

I don’t think this properly respects hierarchy of needs.

Being invaded by or destroyed by a foreign power is a far worse outcome than waiting for or not receiving a hip replacement.

We have an aging population and ever more sophisticated and expensive treatments.

The demand for health services is insatiable and will never recede.

We could take the defense budget to zero and it still wouldn’t “fix” the NHS.

The defense budget didn’t cause the problems the NHS is facing and can’t solve them either.

You are minimizing a far more impactful risk to solve a less severe but more easily apparent risk that your approach still doesn’t solve anyway.

[Asturias56]

"Being invaded by or destroyed by a foreign power is a far worse outcome than waiting for or not receiving a hip replacement."

problem is that the first possibility is seen rightly as highly unlikely and not imminent - but my neighbours hip operation is needed NOW. So guess what he will vote for?

[Bbtengineer]

"Being invaded by or destroyed by a foreign power is a far worse outcome than waiting for or not receiving a hip replacement."

problem is that the first possibility is seen rightly as highly unlikely and not imminent - but my neighbours hip operation is needed NOW. So guess what he will vote for?

There is nothing rightly about highly unlikely.

That highly unlikely has to be purchased.

[Asturias56]

Hmm - I agree up to a point - the problem is that no UK politician is really interested in spending any money on anything that doesn't get them a vote in the next election.

There are no marches demanding more guns and less butter, only retired military types seem to write letters to the papers calling for increased arms

[Bbtengineer]

Hmm - I agree up to a point - the problem is that no UK politician is really interested in spending any money on anything that doesn't get them a vote in the next election.

There are no marches demanding more guns and less butter, only retired military types seem to write letters to the papers calling for increased arms

Britons don’t march. They grumble and worry.

Still we’re sending billions to Ukraine.

All is not yet lost.

[Asturias56]

It's interesting that I haven't heard a single voice in my Uk acquaintances objecting to sending arms and aid to the Ukraine - even amongst those well left of centre.

Everyone knows who is to blame and that if Putin wins there'll be another war along, closer, in short order

[Asturias56]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/our-magical-thinking-spells-defence-disaster-ft5srh67qOur magical thinking spells defence disasterUnrealistic ideas and self-deception endanger security, anger allies and cost Ukrainian livesRussia’s war in Ukraine has laid bare three decades of delusions. We ignored the threat from Russia and hollowed out our armed forces. We fought and lost two wars of choice, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We covered up our weaknesses with spin, stunts, slogans (“Global Britain”) and legerdemain. Now reality is biting. We face in effect a war of necessity: a direct military challenge from Russia to the European security order. But our enfeebled military cannot meet its obligations to defend us and our allies.

As Table Media, a German specialist news outlet, has revealed, Nato is so worried about Britain’s military overstretch that it has asked Germany to keep the rotating leadership of the alliance’s new spearhead force, the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), for a further year.

We must provide a 5,000-strong force, ready within two to five days. Crucially, these soldiers may not be committed to any other task. Britain habitually double-counts its military obligations, so that the same troops fulfil multiple, clashing duties. But Nato sees through this. It is shaming that our allies would prefer even the notoriously underpowered Germans to our own armed forces for this vital role.

The Ministry of Defence insists that Britain is ready to fulfil its commitment, though Nato has not denied making the request to Berlin. But all over our military machine, rivets are popping, while “the magical thinking is getting worse”, as Francis Tusa, a defence analyst, tells me.

This is most visible in the help we are pledging to Ukraine. The 14 Challenger tanks we are sending there are between a third and a half of our usable fleet. Most of the nominally 200-strong force of these giant killing machines are rusting in warehouses. We promised 30 AS-90 self-propelled artillery guns. Now it turns out we can send only eight, with another 16 at “various states of readiness” elsewhere. That will doubtless be of great comfort to the Ukrainians, who need them all right now.

Overstretch last year forced us to bring home half of our 2,000-strong tripwire force in Estonia. The troops still deployed there lack ammunition: our puny “war stocks” of shells are kept in Britain. Our training programme is in shreds.

Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, laments that the Americans no longer regard us as a first-tier fighting force. But this frantic lobbying for bigger budgets from him and his squabbling brass-hats misses the point. The really striking fact here is that while our army cannot (by Wallace’s admission) deploy a single combat-capable division, Poland can provide four. It is smaller and poorer than Britain but it focuses its efforts and spends its money more wisely. The same could be said of countries such as Australia. Its air force, though much smaller, is probably more combat-capable than the RAF.

As Edward Stringer, a former director of Strategic Command, argues, our approach has been like trying to create a medium-sized rhododendron by pruning a large one. You end up with a lot of roots and too little foliage. Instead, we need a rethink on the lines of those that followed the disastrous Crimean and Boer wars. It should centre on our biggest duty, the defence of Europe in Nato, rather than faraway missions where we will always be too small or too weak to make a difference.

In the short term, we must deal with munitions supplies with the vigour shown by Lord Beaverbrook, the newspaper tycoon whose no-holds-barred approach to aircraft production saved us in 1940. Russia’s invasion is now backed by a war economy. We are still wedded to the leisurely habits of peacetime.
Time is not on our side. Our allies are increasingly impatient with the mismatch between our grand words and skimpy capabilities. Moreover, while we dither and fantasise, Ukraine bleeds and shatters. Worse lies ahead as Russia continues its war of attrition. By the time western allies finally provide warplanes, for example, Ukraine will be gravely short of pilots to fly them.

Yet we should beware of magical thinking. A defeated Russia will be volatile and vengeful. And it may yet cudgel Ukraine into submission, gaining territorial and other trophies. Whatever the war’s outcome, Europe will be a dangerous place. And we are dangerously ill-defended.

[Not_a_boffin]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/our-magical-thinking-spells-defence-disaster-ft5srh67qOur magical thinking spells defence disasterUnrealistic ideas and self-deception endanger security, anger allies and cost Ukrainian livesRussia’s war in Ukraine has laid bare three decades of delusions. We ignored the threat from Russia and hollowed out our armed forces. We fought and lost two wars of choice, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We covered up our weaknesses with spin, stunts, slogans (“Global Britain”) and legerdemain. Now reality is biting. We face in effect a war of necessity: a direct military challenge from Russia to the European security order. But our enfeebled military cannot meet its obligations to defend us and our allies.

As Table Media, a German specialist news outlet, has revealed, Nato is so worried about Britain’s military overstretch that it has asked Germany to keep the rotating leadership of the alliance’s new spearhead force, the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), for a further year.

We must provide a 5,000-strong force, ready within two to five days. Crucially, these soldiers may not be committed to any other task. Britain habitually double-counts its military obligations, so that the same troops fulfil multiple, clashing duties. But Nato sees through this. It is shaming that our allies would prefer even the notoriously underpowered Germans to our own armed forces for this vital role.

The Ministry of Defence insists that Britain is ready to fulfil its commitment, though Nato has not denied making the request to Berlin. But all over our military machine, rivets are popping, while “the magical thinking is getting worse”, as Francis Tusa, a defence analyst, tells me.

This is most visible in the help we are pledging to Ukraine. The 14 Challenger tanks we are sending there are between a third and a half of our usable fleet. Most of the nominally 200-strong force of these giant killing machines are rusting in warehouses. We promised 30 AS-90 self-propelled artillery guns. Now it turns out we can send only eight, with another 16 at “various states of readiness” elsewhere. That will doubtless be of great comfort to the Ukrainians, who need them all right now.

Overstretch last year forced us to bring home half of our 2,000-strong tripwire force in Estonia. The troops still deployed there lack ammunition: our puny “war stocks” of shells are kept in Britain. Our training programme is in shreds.

Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, laments that the Americans no longer regard us as a first-tier fighting force. But this frantic lobbying for bigger budgets from him and his squabbling brass-hats misses the point. The really striking fact here is that while our army cannot (by Wallace’s admission) deploy a single combat-capable division, Poland can provide four. It is smaller and poorer than Britain but it focuses its efforts and spends its money more wisely. The same could be said of countries such as Australia. Its air force, though much smaller, is probably more combat-capable than the RAF.

As Edward Stringer, a former director of Strategic Command, argues, our approach has been like trying to create a medium-sized rhododendron by pruning a large one. You end up with a lot of roots and too little foliage. Instead, we need a rethink on the lines of those that followed the disastrous Crimean and Boer wars. It should centre on our biggest duty, the defence of Europe in Nato, rather than faraway missions where we will always be too small or too weak to make a difference.

In the short term, we must deal with munitions supplies with the vigour shown by Lord Beaverbrook, the newspaper tycoon whose no-holds-barred approach to aircraft production saved us in 1940. Russia’s invasion is now backed by a war economy. We are still wedded to the leisurely habits of peacetime.
Time is not on our side. Our allies are increasingly impatient with the mismatch between our grand words and skimpy capabilities. Moreover, while we dither and fantasise, Ukraine bleeds and shatters. Worse lies ahead as Russia continues its war of attrition. By the time western allies finally provide warplanes, for example, Ukraine will be gravely short of pilots to fly them.

Yet we should beware of magical thinking. A defeated Russia will be volatile and vengeful. And it may yet cudgel Ukraine into submission, gaining territorial and other trophies. Whatever the war’s outcome, Europe will be a dangerous place. And we are dangerously ill-defended.

What a complete pile of poo(rly researched and argued nonsense).

While I would not argue with the need to increase log stocks and enablers, the justifications and arguments in the piece represent shoddy logic.

Lets start with the assertion that NATO is so worried by the state of the UK that they have asked Germany to extend its lead of the VJTF - which it only assumed on 1st Jan this year. This assertion appears to be based solely on a German media article - there's no other source for it. Also the classic NATO has not denied / when did you stop beating your wife? line. How strange that they'd do that at the start of the rotation. That'll also be the German army that is smaller than the British Army as well, I assume? Strangely, that does not get a mention.

Francis Tusa is hardly a source of unvarnished truth either. I'm fairly sure that the 30 AS90 were always couched in terms of arriving depending on readiness.

Then we get the line "Ben Wallace laments that the Americans no longer regard us as a first-tier fighting force". I'm fairly sure SoS has never said any such thing. That is deliberate manipulation of a news report to portray something completely different.

Then we get the "Poles have four times the number of combat capable divisions than we do", dressed up as some form of better use of resources. Might that not be down to the Poles being a traditional land power, positioned right next to the threat, rather than some magical defence efficiency? They don't have a particularly large naval requirement either - a crucial difference.

It's only when you dig into Mr Lucas' background that the truth emerges. He's a european specialist and former LibDem candidate - could these two facts possibly have any bearing on his preference for concentrating on NATO?

This is all part of a concerted lobbying attempt by certain parties to recreate BAOR - or more precisely defer / cancel the planned restructure of the Army as part of the IR refresh.

At no point do any of them explain why the UK (or the US for that matter) should front up large land formations of troops in Eastern Europe, when European nations much closer to the threat - particularly Germany - appear unwilling to do so. It's not as if Ivan is showing particular competence in his ground operations is it? that's against an opposition with a fraction of the counter-air and air-to-ground capabilities that NATO would deploy in the first 5 minutes of any Russian push westwards.

There's a very real danger of learning precisely the wrong lessons from this conflict - and Lucas and his ilk are just the people to teach them....

[Asturias56]

I agree up to a point - anyone invoking Beaverbrook needs a history lesson

The problem is this is in the centre of the Times - it's not some weird website in Texas. These are opinion setting articles - especially as elsewhere there are stories of the Treasury getting pretty sniffy about more money for the MoD.

It wouldn't be so bad if the overall news picture was positive but with problems with everything from Carriers to ACV's and from pilot training to horribly stretched infantry and supply metrics the Uk doesn't seem to be working here.

[Not_a_boffin]

I agree up to a point - anyone invoking Beaverbrook needs a history lesson

The problem is this is in the centre of the Times - it's not some weird website in Texas. These are opinion setting articles - especially as elsewhere there are stories of the Treasury getting pretty sniffy about more money for the MoD.

It wouldn't be so bad if the overall news picture was positive but with problems with everything from Carriers to ACV's and from pilot training to horribly stretched infantry and supply metrics the Uk doesn't seem to be working here.

The Times has been blotting its copybook with some fairly blatant stretching of the truth recently - not just with defence but with some interestingly partisan political positioning as well.

Last I looked, QNLZ was about to embark f/w and is bombing up in Scotland, PWLS is progressing well, Ajax has passed its latest trials. Pilot training is still an issue - although I have some sympathy for Wigston who was confronted by Tubster with an argument that went something along the lines of "I've talked to two people on 617 who waited a long time to get to an operational seat, you've told me an average duration which is different so you're a liar". Sadly Wigston was unable to call the pompous little tw@t a pompous little tw@t, or a gobsh1te or indeed offer him out for that matter.....Interestingly, it appears that the majority of QFI on 207 are dark blue, so the perennial cry doesn't seem to stand up (pre-emption).

As for horribly stretched infantry, I'm assuming you're not talking a bunch of Peter Crouch-alikes, so where exactly is the pressing demand for these infantry units (of which we seem to have 33 regular infantry battalions)?

It's almost as if there's a sustained lobbying campaign being conducted through the pages of a once august newspaper.......

[NutLoose]

The Times has been blotting its copybook with some fairly blatant stretching of the truth recently - not just with defence but with some interestingly partisan political positioning as well.

It may well be, but if it results in extra resources, equipment and manning being forthcoming to our military, is that a bad thing?
A bit of blatent scaremongering no matter how factually incorrect may have a response and bring the public on side to urgently address some of the issues raised and that is never a bad thing.

It is far better to under sell our capability than to over sell it when one is looking for extra funding.

[Not_a_boffin]

It may well be, but if it results in extra resources, equipment and manning being forthcoming to our military, is that a bad thing?
A bit of blatent scaremongering no matter how factually incorrect may have a response and bring the public on side to urgently address some of the issues raised and that is never a bad thing.

It is far better to under sell our capability than to over sell it when one is looking for extra funding.

But the assertion being made is not for extra resources, equipment and manning. It's for reallocation of the existing budget to prop up an army that is incapable of explaining why it exists, what role it should perform and what force structure it should have. It's argument currently appears to be based around "want new tanks, want new guns, want lots of cap badges and if you don't give them to us we'll thkweam and thkweam and thkweam until we're sick, so there".

[NutLoose]

The reason for the AS 90 donation is I believe the UK has woken up to the fact they are ineffectual range wise against the other stuff being fielded, hence a replacememnt is being looked at, either the Korean or French SPA

[BEagle]

How on earth extra resources could be made available to the RAF for pilot training is frankly beyond me. Some 57 UK aerodromes where the RAF once flew have closed since I joined in 1968, for one thing. Where would you station additional training aeroplanes, let alone find enough instructors. Once upon a time there were quite a few pilots lurking in staff appointments or as UAS instructors, but not these days!

Just as an aside, in 1957 there were 11 RAF aerodromes in RAFG, with 32 squadrons of 464 jet fighters / bombers. By the time the wall came down, there were 4 RAFG aerodromes and 12 squadrons of 156 jet fighters / bombers. OK, the F-35B and Typhoon are hugely more capable than Venom FB4 or Meteor NF11, Harrier, Tornado or Phantom and we have nothing left in RAFG - but are a mere 9 UK squadrons really sufficient now?

[Asturias56]

"The Times has been blotting its copybook with some fairly blatant stretching of the truth recently - not just with defence but with some interestingly partisan political positioning as well."

Every newspaper reflects the wishes of its owners - ever read the Daily Mail (or the Morning Star)????

And trying to defend UK procurement isn't exactly easy - someone wrote today "the Ajax program is back on track" - which to me suggests they have a time machine and we're going to erase the 13 year delay in delivery.

[Not_a_boffin]

And trying to defend UK procurement isn't exactly easy - someone wrote today "the Ajax program is back on track" - which to me suggests they have a time machine and we're going to erase the 13 year delay in delivery.

Hmmm. It's almost as if UK defence procurement is somehow completely separate from the Army (in this case) and is just something foisted upon the poor helpless service. In reality, it's a complex mix in which the Army (and RAF and RN in some of their programmes) are equally complicit.

[Just This Once...]

QNLZ was about to embark f/w and is bombing up in Scotland, PWLS is progressing well...

This is delusional Royal Navy thinking at its best. Your new ship eating itself and needing extensive repairs is precisely the reverse of an actual military capability. Only a fool would claim a positive for the speed at which an unplanned, lengthy and expensive repair is taking place.

QNLZ is not much better. In terms of 'bombing-up' it is doing so with the bare minimum of stocks (from a stockpile the resembles a puddle) that with the exception of some forward stocks, is almost entirely based at Kineton. A home they share with the vast majority of all RAF and Army ammunition stocks. Even with our depleted supplies and slow destruction of obsolete weapons, we have allowed DM 'eggs-in-one-basket' Kineton to become the largest ammunition dump in Western Europe.

Embarking fixed-wing is another way of saying that we are deploying some of our F-35B pilots, the entire cadre of which we could fit in a minibus. Bombing-up for war, or even capable of it, it is not. Wallace publicly points at our hollowed-out capability and calls it a strategic risk - he is not wrong.

[ORAC]

Latest review rumour is that the PoW will be mothballed, available to replace QNLZ as and when she is programmed for a refit. Which would enable manpower and funds to be released for the frigate fleet…

Reference the 30 AS90s we’ve promised, we are actually only sending. 8 with the promise of more. The rest are in various states of disrepair with a lack spares such as engines and gearboxes. They hope to eventually send another 8-16, but don’t hold your breath. They’ll probably end up stripping them to keep the first. 8 in spares such as replacement barrels.

[Not_a_boffin]

This is delusional Royal Navy thinking at its best. Your new ship eating itself and needing extensive repairs is precisely the reverse of an actual military capability. Only a fool would claim a positive for the speed at which an unplanned, lengthy and expensive repair is taking place.


It's no different to the T2 engine issue, the Tutor issues, the Atlas engine issues, the Typhoon seat issues. It's a bit more difficult to fix, what with the 'oggin and everything and a bit more visible, what with the ship being one of two rather large assets.

[Lonewolf_50]

At no point do any of them explain why the UK (or the US for that matter) should front up large land formations of troops in Eastern Europe, when European nations much closer to the threat - particularly Germany - appear unwilling to do so. It's not as if Ivan is showing particular competence in his ground operations is it? that's against an opposition with a fraction of the counter-air and air-to-ground capabilities that NATO would deploy in the first 5 minutes of any Russian push westwards.
There's a very real danger of learning precisely the wrong lessons from this conflict - and Lucas and his ilk are just the people to teach them.... Thank you for articulating some of the thoughts that have crossed my mind vis a vis roles and missions in NATO. I wonder if the Poles feel, sincerely, that the rest of NATO actually has their back.

[mopardave]

I don't suppose it helps that we have an ACM who's not exactly banging the table either.......there seemed to be so many missed opportunities when he was in front of the Defence Select Committee.

[NutLoose]

Thank you for articulating some of the thoughts that have crossed my mind vis a vis roles and missions in NATO. I wonder if the Poles feel, sincerely, that the rest of NATO actually has their back.

The amount of rearming they are doing I doubt it, the rest of NATO could learn from them as opposed sitting on their hands and twiddling their thumbs. They know the score re Russia’s ambitions if Ukraine falls, have lived under a Soviet regime and damned well will fight to stop that ever happening again.

[Asturias56]

IIRC in both 1914 and 1939 the French weren't very impressed that the British could only field a couple of divisions in support of their forces. It's all very well saying you have a significant Navy and Air Force (which we did then) but fighting in Europe means infantry on the ground in large numbers.

[Not_a_boffin]

the French weren't very impressed

"Bof!"

[minigundiplomat]

IIRC in both 1914 and 1939 the French weren't very impressed that the British could only field a couple of divisions in support of their forces. It's all very well saying you have a significant Navy and Air Force (which we did then) but fighting in Europe means infantry on the ground in large numbers.

We have a commitment to NATO, which could be air or sea. However, when it comes to feeding human lives into a grinder on the ground in Europe, I'd like to see the EU members who have spent sweet FA on defence for decades, feed their youth into the grinder instead. NATO is the best solution, but the EU is no friend, and UK Defence should be postured to the UK, its interests and it's minimum obligation to NATO.

[oldmansquipper]

Rishi has said “He will do everything needed to defend Britain”

Very reassuring.
….and so it begins.

Apparently, according to Defence Secretary Wallace, we are conduction an urgent review of our posture in the light of recent U.S experiences.

As a first step, an export embargo on Map pins, sewing kits and knitting needles (in fact, anything sharp and pointy) has been applied and will be rigidly enforced, once the enforcers come back to work after their ongoing strike action.

However, the effect of this draconian governmental ban on the U.Ks industrial power base has been assessed as minimal, as everything is imported from China anyway.

Keep calm and carry on, I guess….

[Not_a_boffin]

As Table Media, a German specialist news outlet, has revealed, Nato is so worried about Britain’s military overstretch that it has asked Germany to keep the rotating leadership of the alliance’s new spearhead force, the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), for a further year.

We must provide a 5,000-strong force, ready within two to five days. Crucially, these soldiers may not be committed to any other task. Britain habitually double-counts its military obligations, so that the same troops fulfil multiple, clashing duties. But Nato sees through this. It is shaming that our allies would prefer even the notoriously underpowered Germans to our own armed forces for this vital role.

The Ministry of Defence insists that Britain is ready to fulfil its commitment, though Nato has not denied making the request to Berlin. But all over our military machine, rivets are popping, while “the magical thinking is getting worse”, as Francis Tusa, a defence analyst, tells me.

https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1625764388685709314

That's a proper SoS!

[NutLoose]

Interesting the Challenger 3 design has been signed off, one would have thought they would review parts of it in light of what they are learning from Ukraine re top armour etc

[Not_a_boffin]

Interesting the Challenger 3 design has been signed off, one would have thought they would review parts of it in light of what they are learning from Ukraine re top armour etc
There's no amount of armour you can put on a tank to defeat a top-attack weapon without turning the tank into an immobile pillbox. You use active defences to counter that sort of weapon.

[NutLoose]

Apparently, according to Defence Secretary Wallace, we are conduction an urgent review of our posture in the light of recent U.S experiences.

As a first step, an export embargo on Map pins, sewing kits and knitting needles (in fact, anything sharp and pointy) has been applied and will be rigidly enforced, once the enforcers come back to work after their ongoing strike action.

However, the effect of this draconian governmental ban on the U.Ks industrial power base has been assessed as minimal, as everything is imported from China anyway.

Keep calm and carry on, I guess….

Iv'e also learnt they have added bodge tape, plastic sheeting and broom handles to the list.

[NutLoose]

There's no amount of armour you can put on a tank to defeat a top-attack weapon without turning the tank into an immobile pillbox. You use active defences to counter that sort of weapon.

True, but then were these part of the Chally 3 update or already fitted to the Chally 2 and if, not would it not be prudent to look at what is shown to work and modify if needed before they cut steel to allow for it, they may well have jamming for missiles, but for a grenade dropped from above?
The Germans incidentally late war added steel plates on legs over vunerable areas on the engine decks such as intakes or cooling grills to protect them from aerial attacks, so its nothing new..


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/717x251/image_58c79e896aa9643854c7e63376cd46378b697ede.png

[Ninthace]

We have a commitment to NATO, which could be air or sea. However, when it comes to feeding human lives into a grinder on the ground in Europe, I'd like to see the EU members who have spent sweet FA on defence for decades, feed their youth into the grinder instead. NATO is the best solution, but the EU is no friend, and UK Defence should be postured to the UK, its interests and it's minimum obligation to NATO.
NATO is a military alliance. The EU isn't.

[Not_a_boffin]

NATO is a military alliance. The EU isn't.
Not from choice. Give them time.....

[Not_a_boffin]

True, but then were these part of the Chally 3 update or already fitted to the Chally 2 and if, not would it not be prudent to look at what is shown to work and modify if needed before they cut steel to allow for it, they may well have jamming for missiles, but for a grenade dropped from above?
The Germans incidentally late war added steel plates on legs over vunerable areas on the engine decks such as intakes or cooling grills to protect them from aerial attacks, so its nothing new..


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/717x251/image_58c79e896aa9643854c7e63376cd46378b697ede.png
There's a significant difference between resisting splinters / small arms and shaped charge or self-forging projectiles. That difference tends to result in multiple inches of additional material and consequent additional weight.

[Ninthace]

Not from choice. Give them time.....
Unless there is a major withdrawal of commitment to NATO the US and Canada, I don't see it as likely. There would be too much duplication of effort and dual commitment of forces to both. While the EU has NATO to defend it, where is the benefit?

[Not_a_boffin]

Unless there is a major withdrawal of commitment to NATO the US and Canada, I don't see it as likely. There would be too much duplication of effort and dual commitment of forces to both. While the EU has NATO to defend it, where is the benefit?

A common sense argument made many times over the last four decades, not least by Maggie. However, that hasn't stopped the EU from trying to advance a parallel organisation to succeed the old WEU.

You may wish to acquaint yourself with this....

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-security-defence-and-crisis-response_en

or this - which doesn't even mention NATO...
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-rapid-deployment-capacity_en

[Ninthace]

A common sense argument made many times over the last four decades, not least by Maggie. However, that hasn't stopped the EU from trying to advance a parallel organisation to succeed the old WEU.

You may wish to acquaint yourself with this....

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-security-defence-and-crisis-response_en

or this - which doesn't even mention NATO...
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-rapid-deployment-capacity_en

Oh they may have aspirations, but I just don't see then going anywhere without involving NATO within a European context. The UK and I suspect most other countries do not have the forces to commit to two organisations and control of the military still rests with the sovereign states, not Brussels, does it not?

[NutLoose]

There's a significant difference between resisting splinters / small arms and shaped charge or self-forging projectiles. That difference tends to result in multiple inches of additional material and consequent additional weight.


Nooo, never.

I was just showing nothing is new, and that they were worrying about overhead weapons for a long time..

[Not_a_boffin]

control of the military still rests with the sovereign states, not Brussels, does it not?
I repeat, give them time.....

[T28B]

It appears that the French have now jumped on that bandwagon (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/651379-france-concerned-about-state-britain-s-armed-forces.html).

[typerated]

Surely the state of our defence should not be judged in solation but relatively to the strength our main potential adversary.
If our defence capability takes a slight dip while we replace what we send to Ukraine that is not so significant if Russia is being battered.

Our short-medium term aims should be about supporting Ukraine (and reducing Russia) rather than building back up the British Military.

[NutLoose]

Surely the state of our defence should not be judged in isolation but relatively to the strength our main potential adversary.
If our defence capability takes a slight dip while we replace what we send to Ukraine that is not so significant if Russia is being battered.

Our short-medium term aims should be about supporting Ukraine (and reducing Russia) rather than building back up the British Military.

And that depends on us replacing what we send as you suggest, but Challenger wise we only have so many hulls, so where are you going to whistle up replacements for them from? and the AS90 had proven to be to short a range weapon compared to other artillery so would be at risk, now they are apparently looking at the French and Korean weapons and they will not be ready and in service next week, month, year, decade....
how much we get M109 from the Belgiqee dealer in the short term...that's if he has any left. or the States.

The United Kingdom is facing a massive shortage of weapons due to Downing Street’s decision to send guns to Ukraine. According to a report published by The Sun, two Royal Artillery regiments were left completely disarmed, and the British War hawks are now making efforts to convince taxpayers to submit to a surge in military spending.

Also, the Defence Secretary of the UK, Ben Wallace has pledged to immediately replace the weapons by spending £ 800 million on “mobile fires programme”. This development came as all of the UK’s 30 serviceable AS-90 self-propelled artillery guns were sent to Ukrainian forces.

Two Royal Artillery regiments were left completely disarmed, and the British War hawks are now making efforts to convince taxpayers to submit to a surge in military spending.

Also, the Defence Secretary of the UK, Ben Wallace has pledged to immediately replace the weapons by spending £ 800 million on “mobile fires programme”. This development came as all of the UK’s 30 serviceable AS-90 self-propelled artillery guns were sent to Ukrainian forces.

"The decision to give them away has stripped two Royal Artillery regiments, based on Salisbury Plain, Wilts, of all their working weapons," wrote the outlet, which added that an artillery source told them: "If gunners don’t have guns, we can’t fight, we can’t train." The former head of the UK’s Joint Forces Command, retired General Richard Barrons, claimed that the fighting capabilities of British forces have been "hollowed out by spending cuts." He further said that "years of cuts to ammunition production mean that, for some types of key weapons, the army would run out in a busy afternoon."

Barrons opined that the UK's military has now come down to "tier two," a designation that is shared by countries including Germany and Italy, rather than "tier one." He suggested that the British government needs to send more funds to strengthen the country's military power.

Also, British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace has reiterated that the British military has been left "hollowed out and underfunded" in light of his government’s continuous support for Ukraine. "As the world gets more dangerous, defence should get a growing proportion of spending," he reportedly urged.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the UK's defence ministry told MailOnline, "The granting in kind of AS 90 will provide an important increase in Ukraine's capabilities and will help to accelerate Ukrainian success on the battlefield. Concurrently, the Army is continuing to meet its operational AS90 commitment in Estonia," he added. The British army is now focused on increasing the "Mobile Fires Platform project, which is designed to deliver an enduring replacement this decade," and work is "being undertaken at pace to replace AS90 in the short term."


https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/uk-news/uk-left-with-no-more-heavy-guns-after-helping-ukraine-fight-against-russia-report-articleshow.html