UK military ill-prepared to defend an attack, says retired chief
 

The armed forces are ill-prepared to defend the UK against a serious military attack, a senior commander has warned the defence secretary.

In a memo before he retired in April as head of Joint Forces Command, Gen Sir Richard Barrons said key capabilities had been stripped out to save money.
He said Whitehall was "preserving the shop window" with items like aircraft carriers, the Financial Times reports.

Defence officials said Sir Richard had backed the last defence review.

It followed the government's decision to raise defence spending by nearly £5bn by 2020-21 and its pledge to meet Nato's target to spend 2% of GDP on defence for the rest of the decade. Sir Richard said: "Capability that is foundational to all major armed forces has been withered by design." He said critical technical and logistical capabilities had been "iteratively stripped out. "Counter-terrorism is the limit of up-to-date plans and preparations to secure our airspace, waters and territory," he said.  "Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort."

The Army "has grown used to operating from safe bases in the middle of its operating area, against opponents who do not manoeuvre at scale", he said.

Manpower in all three services was dangerously squeezed and Navy ships and RAF planes had become used to depending on US support, he said.
"Key capabilities such as radars, fire control systems and missile stocks are deficient," he said. "There is a sense that modern conflict is ordained to be only as small and as short term as we want to afford, and that is absurd... The failure to come to terms with this will not matter at all if we are lucky in the way the world happens to turn out, but it could matter a very great deal if even a few of the risks now at large conspire against the UK."

Sir Richard served as head of Joint Forces Command between 2013 and 2016, a role that saw him in charge of more than 20,000 military and civilian personnel across all three services. It is not the first time a senior British military commander has spoken against defence cuts. But BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said other criticism had not contained so much detail or been expressed as starkly. A defence source has questioned the motive behind the release of the memo, wondering if it was "sour grapes" as Sir Richard had been one of the candidates put forward for promotion as head of the armed forces but was turned down.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Our defence review last year put in place a plan for more ships, planes and troops at readiness, alongside greater spending on cyber and special forces. That plan was backed by a rising defence budget. "And, crucially, it was backed by all of the service chiefs, who were heavily involved putting it together."

Former General reveals 'planning assumptions' that were valid for some years before I left.


Has he got a book coming out, or a lecture tour?
I note the Beeb has latched onto the sour grapes over Sir Stu's appointment.

Apart from stating the bleedin obvious when was it really different?

During the Cold War we had lots more forces, were they capable then of stopping an all out attack? In the 60s we projected power with substantial overseas basing which contributed to stability as far as Asia. As we withdrew our forces shrank, things became less stable and our ability to deploy in different theatres disappeared.

Pretty much this....

I'm not in any way suggesting Gen B is anything but a top drawer VSO, however, if you're in the business of making a difference, the time for such critique was some time ago, not when you're drawing on the pension.

His comments will sadly be forgotten by this coming Tuesday.

I hope his next job interview is better than his last.

Yes, far safer to assume these are just the ramblings of a bitter old has-been, rather than some obvious and pointed criticisms of a Defence strategy led by mandarins at the Treasury. Far safer.

I have to ask ... Who is going to attack the UK directly?

Govt asked for more money by Army boss....................

Indeed.

Another of Sandhurst's finest gobbing-off as he heads off to pasture.

Let me get this straight:

WE are a little 'democratic' country off the NW coast of Europe and have been subjected to decades of Defence cuts, and we're deeply in debt.

THEY are a huge totalitarian regime with a massive military and a boss that actually controls his country and doesn't over-worry about human rights issues.

WE are not capable of defending ourself in case of a conflict . . .

HOW MUCH DID THEY PAY HIM TO WORK THIS OUT BEFORE HE RETIRED? (on full pay)

Go figure . . . I'm shocked.

We have a pretty weak defence against a Vogon constructor fleet as well!:oh: Maybe he might realign his threat vs reality threshold? Also, how do some of these VSOs presume to brief what should be (if it is valid) classified information in the open press?:=

OAP

The General thinks we can't defend ourselves against an attack from Russia/others?

WTF does he think we are in NATO for?

And why does he think Russia/the others will come past all the others in W Europe/US/Canada to attack us?

Only a gash Corporal from a funny regiment. Ignore me.

Some sad ramblings here.

The General is correct.

Have to agree with your comments jindabyne. Talk softly, carry big stick. Who is going to attack us? The next enemy to do so, that's who. Years of picking our enemies ourselves (usually those with little or no air power of their own) seem to have blinded us to the real purpose of our air power, and all this two days after BoB day!

That is why you have nukes. Been a pretty good defense.

The Sultan

So why did he not make the point when head of the Army? This happens time and time again! They only fall on theirs swords after they leave!! Off to the bunker with a glass of something strong!👿

Without going into any operational details of course, if say there was a mass attack on the UK by hostile aircraft, is there a plan in place to generate enough aircraft quickly enough to counter a threat?


Or do we just have our QRA aircraft plus any replacement aircraft in reserve?


I'm assuming that other NATO countries would be a tad interested in seeing, say, a mass formation of bombers heading towards the UKADR (from the East I was thinking), and act accordingly?

I read this story and then the other army story that the UK will block any EU army. (quite how we will do that I am not sure as it is unlikely the Eu will take any notice of us)

Is there any harm in an EU army- which would not be instead of NATO but would make NATO potentially more effective as it would reduce membership to manageable size and with US presidents saying Europe needs to stand on its own two feet a much larger integrated force would be betetr at replacing to whatever degree gaps left by withdrawl of US forces and be more of a counterweight to the US domination of NTO as by far and away the largest memeber ?

To me it seems a good idea as no EU state can really afford a proper army any more except perhaps France which has its own accounting system so an Eu army would over time see huge savings in equipment and diversity in manning -no need for Skiing Royal marines as the Scandis and Eastern europeans would do that . I would have thought UK would do pretty well in terms of key jobs as we are more experienced than most other EU armies and probably reasonably well regarded because of our history. Our squaddies have more actual combat than most and would benefit from the better weapons and kit it seems other armies usually have even if we have better-ie more experience soldiers (an example of this is the recent BBC documentary about Afghanistan and Helmland province. A much smaller Uk unit had replace 100 Danes holding a small village against the aliban. Our guys looked very competent and did well but had two peashooter machine guns and a couple of WW2 era mortars but the Danes had 6 fifty cal brownings plus a lot of rockets .

So overall I would think we would do well out of an EU army so why the immediate and vehement UK government opposition?

The Russian Confederation has mandated the first use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Go look it up if you don't believe me.

As for those who cannot see beyond their masters paycheck, the squandering of billions on weapon systems that are, by their own admission, unready, untried, and even when delivered, are not at the designed operating parameters is completely immoral.

Looking at the cluster **** the AD force fell into post concrete wall felling and the opposition's ability to gather intel from open and corporate sources I doubt that they have any doubts to our "capability"..

Treble One, the only defence against a mass raid on UK, bolt from the blue, would be response in kind. The only high alert response is Trident.

Game, set, match or score draw.

The V-Force could mount an effective retaliatory response in 4-5 hours (other than QRA), I think the air defence force was a couple of hours faster. Apart from QRA neither force could meet the bolt from the blue.

Today many things have changed. Fewer fighters; fewer bases(targets); more people live off base with many over an hour away.

Is there a plan? Don't know. I do know we hung into the Fortress Britain plans just in case. In a remarkably short time they became out of date. Squadrons equipped, changed bases, units moved, and there was no high level interest in maintaining what were essentially history documents.