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

US general warns British Army is no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force, sources say | Daily Mail Online

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

FB

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-genera...eveal-12798365

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

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.

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.

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.

,,

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?

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

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.

..

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.

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:

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.

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...ing-in-2023-pm

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?

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.

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

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.

Just the same as the NHS and PFI.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.go...r_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/ov...issance%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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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...."

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.