France 'concerned' about state of Britain's Armed Forces
 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-armed-forces/

Comments ?

My comment is that it's pretty pointless linking to a pay to view article that most people can't read.

Where is the Like button !? :)

There are a couple of simple ways around this:

• Turn off Javascript in your web browser (the pay wall relies on your browser running Javascript to prevent you from reading it without a login).​ That should be somewhere in preferences/settings for your particular browser.
• Use an archive site. such as archive.ph. I have done it for you for this article: https://archive.ph/CnoBB

My comment is why this isn't in the Military section?

Agree, when an article is paywalled a synopsis would be useful, although if it's geoblocked it may not have been apparent to the OP that others couldn't see it.

For those who can't see the original this link worked for me: https://dnyuz.com/2023/02/14/france-...-armed-forces/

FWIW my very quick skim-read take is that the UK have been giving kit to Ukraine, France is concerned that they (the UK) have depleted their armed forces stock as a result, but they've not increased the budget to bolster supplies. Given mutual military support expectations between France and UK, France is of the view the UK is now not able to pull their weight should it be needed...

FP.

You can use 12 foot ladder to access most paywall articles;

https://12ft.io/

Why should we go to the trouble to do this? Thread just goes to garbage.

Could we just get to the jokes about tanks with five reverse gears?

Because I hadn't seen it yet.
Problem solved. :ok:

It is not behind a Paywall in the UK or Europe for me.

Regardless, it is a common courtesy to other PPRuNers to Cut’n’Paste a quote of what you are asking them to comment upon 👍

Rule 9

https://archive.is/CnoBB

Its here, I noticed they never mentioned the state of the german armed forces which I believe they are in same if not worse state than the UK

Paywalled here in ‘murica. Cannot access.

UK v France, have to see where the Vegas oddsmakers are laying their money.

France 'concerned' about state of Britain's Armed Forces

Sources claim Nato is worried about UK capability amid wrangles over funding and depleted reserves from donations to Ukraine
By Danielle Sheridan, Defence Editor ; Henry Samuel and Ben Riley-Smith, Political Editor 14 February 2023 • 9:28pm https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...eg?imwidth=680 Britain has agreed to send 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine French officials have raised concerns over the state of the British Armed Forces.

The Telegraph understands that Paris officials claimed that budget cuts to the UK's military were causing alarm among Nato members, as defence ministers from the pact gathered in Brussels.

It comes amid a row over defence spending in the upcoming budget, with Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, said to have asked the Chancellor for £10 billion for his department.

Calls for more money have been bolstered by the war in Ukraine, and by growing warnings about the threat from China in the wake of suspected spy balloons being shot down over the US.

On Tuesday a leading French MP told the Telegraph that there were concerns in his country that Britain had given weapons to Ukraine from its own supplies, leaving its forces depleted.

Emmanuel Macron announced last month that he would boost military spending by more than a third by 2030.

British government sources insisted that the French had not raised any such concerns with them.

It comes as Mr Wallace has been tipped to take over as head of Nato when Jens Stoltenberg, the current Secretary-General, steps down in October. On Tuesday, sources speculated that the French might rather the role went to an EU figure, and may be briefing to undermine Mr Wallace's chances.
Ben Wallace is fighting for more funding for his department Credit: No10 Downing Street Thomas Gassilloud, president of the French parliamentary defence committee and an MP in Mr Macron's Renaissance group, told the Telegraph the French had a vested interest in the strength of the British military due to a “strategic solidarity” between the two nations.

“We want the British to have a strong army,” Mr Gassilloud said. “When you have this type of debate it clearly is a source of concern. I have well understood that there is a political context to this regarding the defence budget and if this debate comes now it’s because everyone wants to weigh in on this debate.”

He also sounded a note of caution over how the UK has given kit to Ukraine.

Mr Gassilloud said: “One of our criteria for giving away equipment is the condition of not weakening the French military. For example, last week we pledged more Caesar howitzers but these came directly from industry to the Ukrainians and were not taken from army stock.

"We take constant care that our supplies to Ukraine don't deplete our national defence capabilities. I hope that the UK has the same concerns."

The UK has been generous in its donations to Kyiv, which have included NLAW and Brimstone anti-tank missiles, Sea King helicopters, artillery shells, and most recently an order of 14 Challenger 2 tanks.

General Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the Army, recently warned that it would be "temporarily weaker" as a result.

Meanwhile, Mr Stoltenberg on Monday warned that Ukraine was getting through ammunition faster than Nato member states could produce it.

Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the Defence Select Committee, warned that the suggestion from the French could play into Vladimir Putin’s hands.

“This Nato ministerial is a vital opportunity to show unity, commitment and resolve to upgrade our collective defence posture as Russia attempts to redraw the map of Eastern Europe,” he said.

“It is true Britain’s Army requires an urgent upgrade but this must be addressed in the Integrated Review refresh. Any public bickering between Nato allies only plays to Putin’s advantage.”

The Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are locked in negotiations about how large an increase there should be in military spending.

The Telegraph revealed in December that the MoD will get at least a billion-pound boost to stop real term cuts in its budget.

However, there is now a wider debate about how high the increase should go, with decisions to be announced in the Budget on March 15.

The MoD is reportedly pushing for a rise of around £10 billion. Meanwhile, Treasury officials have accused the MoD of past overspends.

A backdrop of sustained pressure to provide weaponry and machinery to Ukraine, and the geopolitical challenges from Russia and China, has shaped the discussions.

'Lack of money'

Senior defence sources told The Telegraph on Tuesday that there was “lack of money” for the Ministry of Defence and that this would be reflected in the budget and the updated Integrated Review.

Under the 2021 Integrated Review there were “radical cuts” of troops by 10,000.

Mr Macron had pledged that France's military budget for 2024-2030 will stand at €413 billion (£364 billion), up from €295 billion in 2019-2025.

Speaking at the Mont-de-Marsan air base in southwestern France on Jan 20 he said: "As war is changing, France has and will have armies ready for the perils of the century.We need to be one war ahead."

A Government spokesman said: “This story is based on unsubstantiated rumours.

“We are ensuring our Armed Forces have the equipment and capability they need - including through the biggest increase to defence spending since the Cold War, and a fully-funded £242 billion 10-year equipment plan.

“Our Armed Forces remain among the best in the world and are one of the leading contributors to Nato. Next year we will take on the leadership of Nato’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force – we have deployed over 8,000 troops last year alone.”

Will be the same France that has to borrow our C17 to deliver troops and equipment to Africa or the same France that borrowed a couple of Chinooks to pad out their Bastille Day parade? :E

I don't think this is "the French" per se.

It's more like the sustained briefing operation in advance of the ISR refresh that has been ongoing for some weeks now in both the Times and the Telegraph.

SoS response still covers it best.

You make the mistake of thinking that statements from Macron, his ministers or MP's regarding matters outside France are for international consumption, when they are always for domestic consumption. Added to which, the pound shop Napoleon wants to run the EU's military affairs, and he has tanks to sell, whilst also justifying 400Bn in increased defence spend.

Day after day peopel grumble here about the state of UK armed forces and with quite genuine concern. I think our forces do the very very best they can but they are hamstrung with equipment which is , again as repeated regualrly here that is of dubious value or outdated.

When someone outside the UK and we have seen expressions of of concern from France Germany and USA recently , its all swept away in the usual xenophobic tidal wave of abuse to the French and Germans and sarcastic comments about the Americans. Clearly France and Germany are less than happy about UKs potential role as NATO response force. And, why not, after Brexit and the last few years who in their right mind would trust the UK government . Or UK politicians like Johnson who in his own disgusting self agrandising way has pushed himself into the Ukraine situation wihtout any formal backign or authority. The other side of the Boris coin his total incompetence s -give Ukraine all our fighter jets for example. Britain leads the way on tanks when it doesnt , that's America .Wouldnt it be better to allocate the tanks we are sending to Ukraine to NATO so Ukraine could have an almost uniform force of Leopards.

I think UK armed forces are, like Nurses and Teachers, taken for granted and badly treated but somehow still manage to be 'world beating'

Erm.... If it wasn't for the arrogance of Johnson, there wouldn't be a Ukraine anymore and we would be facing a whole new sh*tshow with Russia still fully manned and equipped sitting on the borders of the likes of Poland ready for part two.

It was Boris that pushed the West into helping Ukraine when no one else would listen, we helped train the Ukrainian army with other allies to be a competent, professional and Western oriented force far removed from what they previously had before the Russians attacked and provided them with NLAW's that in their part blunted Russia's ambitions and forced a withdrawl from the likes of Kyiv.

Yes, an all Leopard force would be ideal, but in supplying them it was part political to embarass our European partners into opening up to the idea of supplying modern tanks by breaking down that red line, and in part a Challenger is an excellent tank, superior to most of the Russian tanks fielded and in a war, every little helps.. to paraphrase a well known store.

Like him or loathe him, at the end of the day he has secured his part in the History of Ukraine and the West, without his timely interjection the world could well have been a different place in Europe, and not for the good.

You, Sir, are spouting Bolleaux.

Your conflation of the subject with Brexit is complete whataboutery; many of the EU members have underinvested in their armed forces, none more so than Germany who are in a disgusting state of readiness. This governments commitment to the UK Armed Forces since 2010 has been pitiful, on that we agree, but that has nothing to do with our departure from the EU.

Esteemed Colleagues:
NATO's report on defense burden sharing and spending is here
The UK meets or exceeds the 2.0% target (guideline), and the French don't quite reach it, if you look at the information covering the years 2014 to 2022.
(Table 4 has UK listed as 2.13%(2014) and 2.12%(2022), while France listed as 1.80%(2014) and 1.92%(2022))
The report is dated 27 June 2022. There a quite a few graphs and charts worth considering, at your leisure.

Macron wants a Frenchman as the next head of NATO, not Ben Wallace, who is in the frame

Leaving aside the juvenile name-calling and terrible spelling, exactly whose formal backing and authority do you think he should have sought? The useless UN? The impotent EU? The uninvolved NATO? Maybe you think he should have checked with the Kremlin first. As others have said, if he hadn't acted when he did there would be no Ukraine today.

Which part do you find funny?

90,000 killed, 200,000 wounded, and 1,800,000 captured.

puerile schoolboy humour, ignoring the fact that the UK only survived because of a 21 mile wide moat. How many reverse gears were used getting to Dunkirk?

That of course does not take the overall GDP into account, The U.K. GDP is higher than Frances so in real terms the amount of actual money spent will be greater, similarly Germany has a Higher GDP than the U.K. so again even if their spending is less than the 2% in real terms they may have spent a larger amount on defence compared to the U.K.

Getting back to the French claims, it does beg irony.

They had plenty of troops and weapons in 1940, but they didn’t have the will to fight for their own homes. I’ll take the views of our European ‘allies’ seriously when Germany can field a fully equipped and operationally experienced division, and they start pulling their weight (Netherlands, Poland & Estonia excepted).

Re some of the responses to my rather deliberate prompt.

Boris was in a position to go to Ukraine initially but certainly not lately

I think it is highly unlikely that he had any material impact on decisions taken in France Germany and USA, not being exactly popular in those countrie. Of course Brexit has little direct influence n the military but at the end of the day NATO is a political structure to direct allied military forces and in my own opinion, unqualified from a military perspective, NATO has been one of the most successful international organisations ever. So brexit has had little to do with the actual activities of NATO per se but it hardly made the UK popular among its main member states and Johnson with his lies and corrupt practices leading up to that hardly endeared him to EU politicians in the same way his ill-judged and pitiful sucking up to Trump left him stranded when Biden won the election.

Of course there had to be comments about France and 1940 - 82 years ago and although the French hardly covered themselves in glory we were no more use at stopping Blitz Kreig than they were.

So please understand I have nothing but admiration for UK armed forces and their personnel , but nothing but contempt for Johnson. Just how much Russian money did his party take leading up to Brexit, along with what has now been seen to be a farago or even a farage of lies which have left us in dire economic straights such that it will be really hard to actually live up to so called commitments to increase 'investment' in the forces..

I am sorry but i just dont buy the ide that Johnson did anything more than a PR stunt , something I agree he is good at.

I seem to recall French Troops remained behind and held off the German advance granting time for the evacuation of the BEF and some French Forces.

The British were not outnumbered at Singapore but were certainly outmaneuvered.

But....that has naught to do with today as history means nothing if ignored.

Unpreparedness has been the undoing of many a great Power.

That is the lesson we seem to see happening before our eyes.

Could this be a strategic move by some to prevent the UK from being able to think it can send its Army abroad and thus prevent another Dunkirk?

Maybe the French and other NATO members have good reason to fret over the downsizing of the British Military, Air Force, and Navy.

Its all very well saying the UK is spending loads on defence, but when you buy several F35's for example, it takes a big chunk of the budget.

I would suggest that not enough is being spent on other things. We don't have high numbers of boots on the ground for example and the money for looking after them, both on and off duty, is not that forthcoming.

Some units are stretched already and it wouldn't take too much to put them under severe pressure. I know they are good, but that is something to worry about.

Well Boris was there last month and he does not have to go, he does it because he believes in the Ukrainian people and ever since this war started he has put his personal safety at risk in visiting Ukraine to bolster their resolve and to offer the people his support. He was the FIRST to visit,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rip-to-ukraine


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...st-Russia.html


..

..

PLEASE DON'T GO, BEN !

If people look back over the nationality of the NATO General Secretary, does anyone believe that they have shown any significant bias to their national political viewpoint ?

France could be playing a move from the ancient Chinese art of war.

In order to avoid addressing any other country in Europe by name, (and one in particular), they choose a convenient gullible country outside the EU to throw darts at.

On the same note, and to show that this is not just the opinion of France:

From Sky news a few days ago "US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal".

According to the sources, the general, referring to the army, said: "You haven't got a tier one. It's barely tier two."

I would have posted the link here but apparently I can't post URL's before I have 8 posts.

I very much wish the best for the UK (having lived there before). Nevertheless I believe that these comments are indicative of a real issue.

Nice to know that Boris made history in saving a very large chunk of land for European freedom and democracy.

Amazing how politicized people will intentionally mislead us.

Well Mr. Pax Brittanica, the people of Ukraine trust Boris because of what he has allowed them to keep. And looking at what has happened in Ukraine, and is still happening, that freedom is a lot more important than the sour grapes over the results of a free vote on Brexit.

Fortunately in the past year, Britain did not have a repeat, gullible leader, trusting an evil regime so as to think we were once again achieving …..Peace(or should I say Pax) in our time.

I have no idea, the job seems pretty thankless, like herding cats.
Wallace is making a decent fist of fighting our corner with the Treasury and representing both us and Ukraine.
He was a serving officer ...... nice to have someone in the job that has some idea of what he is heading up.

France have forgotten that we don't have to have the same level of defence spending as they do as we don't have to buy white flags.

More to the point they don't have a 5th Gen combat aircraft, nor will they have until if/when FCAS becomes available.