Britain is often portrayed as a nation in decline, but its global influence and capabilities remain significant. As one of the world’s leading nations, the United Kingdom still punches above its weight on the international stage.
However, a wake-up call is echoing through Whitehall and the military ranks: the UK’s Armed Forces require urgent reform. Strengthening defence is not merely a matter of increasing spending or acquiring the latest high-tech weapons – it is about fixing the fundamentals.
From recruiting and retaining skilled personnel to ensuring tanks are operational and troops have adequate ammunition, the basics matter most.
This opinion piece explores why Britain remains a formidable country, not to be underestimated, yet why overhauling defence fundamentals must be the priority before investing in new hardware. We will compare the UK’s approach with those of key allies and adversaries to provide a broader perspective on Britain’s situation.
The goal is a balanced, factual analysis of how the UK can maintain its global standing by ensuring its defence forces are fit for purpose.
Influence in Perspective
Britain today retains many attributes of a global power. It has the world’s sixth-largest defence budget and, until recently, was the second-highest military spender in NATO after the United States. Germany’s recent surge in funding has nudged the UK into third place, yet Britain remains one of NATO’s top contributors.
London fields advanced military capabilities that few nations possess: a nuclear arsenal, a world-class Royal Navy (including two new aircraft carriers), a modern air force operating fifth-generation jets, and highly trained special forces.
Crucially, the UK is one of only two European nuclear powers (alongside France) and has decades of combat experience, from the Gulf War to Afghanistan. These assets underpin Britain’s role as a leading NATO member and a permanent seat holder on the UN Security Council.
Beyond hard military power, the UK wields extensive soft power and diplomatic influence. British culture and education – from the English language to the Premier League and world-renowned universities – ensure the UK remains among the most influential nations. Britain consistently ranks near the top in global soft power indices. Its close alliances amplify its reach: the “special relationship” with Washington, intelligence-sharing partnerships such as Five Eyes, and deep ties across the Commonwealth and Europe all afford Britain an influence disproportionate to its size.
As one analysis noted, “the country’s potential for real global influence should not be underestimated.” Even as rising powers such as China and India grow in stature, the UK remains a key player in shaping international events.
Importantly, Britain has demonstrated leadership in recent crises. It was among the first to support Ukraine against Russian aggression, providing thousands of anti-tank weapons and training Ukrainian troops. The British Army leads NATO’s battlegroup in Estonia, protecting Europe’s eastern flank. The Royal Navy has maintained a presence in the Indo-Pacific to uphold freedom of navigation. All of this underscores that Britain is far from a minor player – it is a nuclear-armed, diplomatically influential nation with proven military capabilities. In short, Britain remains a global power, and its allies continue to look to London for leadership in security matters.
However, prestige and high-end assets alone do not guarantee readiness or effectiveness. Behind Britain’s formidable image, cracks have begun to appear in the foundation of its Armed Forces. Being a global power means little if the nation cannot fulfil its commitments with capable, well-prepared military forces when it matters.
This is why attention is now shifting to the state of the UK’s defence forces – and why serious reforms are required to ensure Britain’s power rests on solid ground.
Urgent Warning Signs
Despite its global status, the UK’s military has been strained by years of budget constraints and dwindling personnel. The British Army, in particular, has seen its resources and manpower reduced to concerning levels.
At approximately 75,000 active-duty soldiers (plus around 25,000 reserves), the Army is at its smallest size in modern history. To put that in perspective, the US Marine Corps alone is larger than the British Army, as former American General H.R. McMaster bluntly observed.
While Britain has focused on elite equipment and niche capabilities, it has steadily cut “boots on the ground” in recent decades. This shrinking land force raises alarms about the UK’s ability to sustain operations or deploy at scale. Indeed, Britain’s own Defence Secretary recently admitted that the country was “not ready to fight a war,” warning that if the UK is not prepared for conflict, it cannot deter one.
A House of Lords inquiry in 2024 delivered a stark verdict: the war in Ukraine was “a wake-up call, laying bare the gap between [Britain’s] ambition and reality” as a military power. The Lords committee found that the UK Armed Forces “lack the mass, resilience and internal coherence” required to credibly deter adversaries or sustain prolonged conflict.
Put simply, Britain’s military is too small, insufficiently resilient, and not well-integrated for the challenges it may face. These are fundamental issues that no amount of advanced jets or cyber weapons can resolve.
One critical problem is recruitment and retention. The Army has struggled to attract new recruits to fill its ranks – and to retain experienced personnel. A recent parliamentary report concluded that the size of the Army is “inadequate,” pointing to excessive bureaucracy that makes recruitment more difficult than necessary.
Cumbersome enlistment processes, such as excessive medical screening hurdles, discourage eager applicants and slow the intake of new soldiers. At the same time, too many trained servicemembers leave mid-career, citing frustrations over pay, family life, and morale. Surveys of British troops reveal that low pay, high housing costs, and difficulty accessing childcare are key reasons many consider leaving the forces.
These personnel shortages directly undermine operational strength. The UK may have some of the best fighter jets in the world, but without enough pilots and technicians, they are of little use.
This is why defence reform must begin with investment in personnel and basic capabilities. Britain needs to streamline its recruitment process and improve conditions for military families to retain talent.
Encouragingly, plans are in place for a package of measures – likely including better pay, improved housing, and enhanced family support – aimed at boosting retention in the forces. These steps are long overdue. A modern military requires a steady pipeline of motivated recruits and satisfied veterans who choose to stay.
Strengthening the Foundation of British Power
Britain stands at a crossroads in defence policy. It remains a powerful nation – economically, diplomatically, and militarily – with global reach and responsibilities. However, to maintain this status in an increasingly dangerous world, the UK must ensure its defence capabilities align with its ambitions. The first step is recognising the hard truth: there are structural problems in the Armed Forces that money alone will not fix without reform.
More funding is essential; years of budget constraints have left British forces too lean. Yet how that money is spent will determine success or failure. Simply acquiring the latest high-tech weapons is not a solution.
Instead, Britain should focus on the fundamentals: increasing personnel numbers, investing in training and exercises, maintaining and upgrading existing equipment, and rebuilding stockpiles of ammunition and fuel. These are the unglamorous necessities of military power. They may not generate headlines, but they win wars and prevent them.
Britain has faced similar challenges before and adapted accordingly. Now is the time to do so again. A UK that fixes its Armed Forces’ foundations – ensuring recruits are in barracks, rounds are in artillery tubes, and fuel is in the tanks – will remain a formidable force in global security.
Britain owes it to itself and its allies not only to spend more on defence but to spend wisely on what truly matters.
I’m making over $20k a month working part time. i kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so i decided to look into it. well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. this is
what i do….. 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
Julia.
You do realise that selling drugs is illegal right?
Can you imagine making $18,000 a month while working from home just a few hours a day? I’m doing it, and I never thought it was possible until I found this online opportunity. The work is super easy, and you don’t need any prior experience—just a desire to succeed! I can’t believe how much my life has changed in such a short time. If you’re ready to take control of your income, visit the website and get started today!
Visit This…… 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐂𝐨𝐦
I make up to $24 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45h to $89h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now I am hoping I could help someone else out there by sharing this link.Try it, you won’t regret it!.!
HERE→ 𝗪𝘄𝘄.𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝘁𝟳.𝗖𝗼𝗺
Really?!
Are internet trolls that well paid? No wonder more seem to be showing up here!
This is a very good editorial piece. Absolutley agree people first.
I agree, people first too. What would they do? Reconstitute the incremental 2nd batallions of the Guards or new REME batallions to operate the drones? Will be interesting to find out. Id he happy with either
John, I don’t really get the joke about new REME battalions. Are there several planned? Why would they be flying drones?
No.
One was formed last few years, about 250 strong, 2nd line to 104 Bde I recall?
I am making a good salary from home $4580-$5240/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now its my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
Here is I started_______ 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
I agree, however we should not underestimate Britains power or influence, I just watched a press conference where the most powerful man in the world was exceptionally nice to the UK for no real reason after he threatened to invade or tariff pretty much everyone else on the planet, this came just two days after the most powerful man in all of Europe offered to start paying money to the UK to share in its defence. Both Ukraine and Russia will both openly state that the UK has been the single biggest influence on the war in Ukraine.
No other nation is lead developing a 6th Gen fighter aircraft.
The EU negotiated a tariff free deal with its in under 2 years while the nations of the pacific rim invited us into CPTPP while shunning China and India. Other countries don’t get these privileges.
The UK certainly was in decline however if ended in the 70’s, Britain is a very different country today and while its economically been hit by the 2008 crisis and Brexit even the IMF projects the UK will have the second heights per capita GDP in the G7 by 2030 and will go on to be the biggest economy in Europe by the 2040’s and will end the 21st century as the biggest country in Europe by population.
We certainly no super power, it’s arguable if anyone really is but we are certainly a great nation with an important role to play in the world.
The only people in the world who don’t see this is ourselves.
Plenty of us do Jim. We are often drowned out on social media by those with an agenda.
Some of whom frequent this site.
P5. G7.
Nuclear power. Soft Power. Yes, as someone seen here as right wing I support it.
( might surprise a few )
Cultural, diplomatic, military links worldwide.
One of the worlds biggest economies.
Our success at Sport, especially the Olympics, the English language, the Monarchy, the BBC, our legacy of Empire, leading universities, a cyber, science and intelligence power.
Our leading role in World War Two and the Cold War which shaped the world today.
The list is endless.
The condition of the military is down to HM Government. Both Labour and Conservative, since the mid 90s.
Haters will hate, because they know we are SOMEBODY.
Well said Jim and Daniele. Some of my favourite lines from Tennyson seem appropriate here. The last line was the epitaph to Scott’s expedition.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Really appreciated those lines!
Agree we are actually the 5 richest nation in the world, is a nuclear power, have 2 70,000 ton carriers, 140 modern front line fighters, SSNs as well as significant world wide influence and footprint. We are not where we want to be, but we are not Belgium.
I won’t have a word said against Belgium. If we were drinking beer that strong all the time, we wouldn’t be up to much, either.
Absolutely right. The Belgians don’t prepare for the previous decades drinking habits. They stay ready to cope with future drinking habits too.
Troops and so on kitted out (exclusively) for a desert war are unlikely to succeed in an Arctic War.
The UK is the 6th largest in the world
The aircraft carriers are 65000 tonnes displacement and haven’t got enough F35 aircraft to deploy on 1 carrier never mind 2, also they have not got enough escort ships or replenishment ships to form a credible carrier group.
The Royal Navy has shrunk to just 16 major surface combatants ships.
The British army could just about deploy 1 division, it’s so small it could fit in Wembley stadium.
It’s all very sad really, because it hasn’t got the might to back up it’s loud fighting talk of always wanting to fight Russia.
All these facts are check able.
well
as for the 5th largest..so I was a couple of years out of date with India just pip us., but 5th or 6th this year is still very impressive
the carriers are actually well over 70,000 tons up to 80,000 fully loaded so I’m correct in that and empty weight they are at least 65,000..as for air wing we have enough for F35Bs 24 at present and will be able to put 30+ on soon, that is profoundly impressive compared to any air wing a potential enemy nation to have on the ocean and we only need one air wing because you have two carriers so you can have one deployed.
the British army could deploy 1 armoured division anywhere …how many other nations can do that…you can count the number on your hands. Yes the major surface combatants fleet is a disgrace…but we are building 19 new combatants..again the number of navy’s that will have that many modern 6000-7000 ton combatants can be counted on your digits, we have the most effective ASW and Antiship SSNs on the planet and only 6 nations can even build SSNs ….we have ballistic missile submarines again something only 6 nations can build and have..
By any metric we are probably 3rd -7th most potential globally significant geopolitical power on the planet..and 2 those ahead of us are continent spanning superpowers.
yes we all go on about how hollowed out are armed forces are..but the reason we do this is because it’s so obvious because of our global place, which is still one of the world powers..not a superpower but we as a nation often get completely confused by the different, because within living memory we were a superpower and so reject intrinsically that in our lowered state we are still a world power
In the end whatever self limiting argument you put up almost every major geopolitical academic will agree there are 8 great powers and 2 emerging powers.. the least of the great powers is Italy and leading great power is the US a superpower, china as second is an emergent superpower, between china and Italy you have five powers that essentially all have slightly different great power characteristics and would be difficult to truly weight which is the most powerful ( UK, France, Russia, Germany, Japan ) then you have the 2 emergent powers of India and Brazil who are still held back and essentially act as huge regional powers due to their 2nd world natures and infrastructure.
You play down the army’s problems massively! Yes, we can deploy our warfighting div, but it is very hollowed out, understrength in manpower terms, poorly equipped and poorly structured.
I’m not sure what you mean by poorly structured Graha can you explain to me what you mean
It’s complex, Andy….but yes, it is.
I see, but as I’m just a crusty old sea dog, it hurts my head. trying so I’ll just take your word for it😁
Yes, Orbats, mate. Orbats.
Maybe Graham will explain in detail. To cut a long story short, our Division is too small with a Brigade missing, and key enablers.
Hi Jonathan,
I think your point that the your paragraph about differing historical perspectives is fundamental to us moving forward successfully both as a country and as an influential power we can all be proud of (the bit in your post that talks about ‘within living memory we were a superpower and so reject intrinsically that in our lowered state we are still a world power’).
We have to stop making comparisons with a world that’s gone. Yes, the RN was enormous back when the Empire existed and yes the Army was huge in the post-war period but we need to be cautious about trying to create a pastiche of individuals’ favoured bits of the past (this isn’t a pop at anyone, we are all equally guilty of harking back to the good old days of a particular Service or capability.
I’m as an ex-submariner and my plan would be to build a large balanced fleet of all the most important maritime assets i.e. SSGNs/SSBNs/SSNs and SSKs, and maybe, just maybe, a skimmer or two (but only if it’s an inclusion and diversity requirement!).
Instead, we need to develop a realistic and clear-eyed view of who we are in the 21st Century (SWOT), what our interests are and how best we can achieve them going forward.
These capabilities would likely also include a beefed up BBC World Service which has been an ENORMOUS contributor to our soft power and influence around the world. “Who can trust to get an unbiased and complete view of current events? Why, from the Brits and their BBC of course.” Curse you, George Osbourne and your false economies!
George A has listed some of the enormous strengths of the UK. We need to welcome and celebrate all of it, including things that sound a bit rubbish like ‘Creative Arts’ (Fashion, TV, Design) which are high margin, generate a ton of exports and for which we are rightly seen as a world leader. It’s not a ‘lefty’ thing, it’s part of our soft power.
In the fight between Right and Left, we all ALL guilty of rubbishing the bits we hate purely because it’s not OUR side of the political war, but we need ALL of it to push forward as one Nation (‘under God, blah blah).
There are loads of examples of the damage caused by this (let’s face it, childish) internecine conflict below:
Rant Number 1,237 is now over! :). If you’ve made it this far in this diatribe, your’re clearly a far more patient person than me!
bring back national service..
yet we have the mindset of being an expeditionary military rather than a fighting one the £ dictate everything including politicians ability to make policies from the ignorance and the lack of anyone who seems to actually know what they are taking about.
6th. 5th, 7th, 8th?
Who cares? I don’t. The fact remains, this country is somebody.
I’ll take it.
Checkable facts on the military. I know, Paul, we’ve shrunk. Size matters, so do a lot of other metrics
Blighty fought and succeeded in three ‘brushfire’ conflicts as I recall during the time the U.S. was losing in Vietnam that few know anything about. Let it remain so. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
according to the news earlier there are apparently 140 conflicts going on worldwide today having a depleted military is okay, as long as we stay out of themi want to see a clear strategy this doesn’t put so much emphasis on getting to the conflict. but rather to be able to impose ourselves and not then realise that we hadn’t bought enough with us. expeditionary? I’d be happy to see us give Jonny foreigner a good hiding.
that’s what my wife says, but I don’t know what or who, I am being compared to!!
😊
The F-35 point is not worth making. LM, an American company, is slow at making our first tranche of 48 jets. That’s life. The aircraft programme always was a seperate programme (multi-national, US-led) and was never going to perfectly dovetail in with the UK national carrier programme.
Plus it was always a working assumption that we would only ever deploy one carrier at a time, so perhaps we only need one air wing plus training and attrition stock. Also, I am sure we will order another 24 or so later this year.
Escorts – how many does one carrier group need? Surely we could always get one or two T45s and two T23s plus a SSN organised? If we are short it is SOP to get a NATO or Commonwealth country to help out – good for interoperability too.
having a carrier group doesn’t make us powerful. after all when it sets to sea it’s still a fairly small one. if Italy had a proper carrier they could field a group at least as big as ours in fact the Italian navy is not a great deal different from ours.
Not quite true. I’m a great fan of the Italian navy surface combatant plan.. the have a lot of capabilities for little money.. but there carrier is profoundly limited.. it will only ever be able to operate 8-10 f35 at a low sortie rate.. it’s not an Elizabeth. They don’t have SSNs… but they do have a great large surface combatant fleet that we should learn from.
We like the Storm Shadow – and depend on it. We’ve given them away.
Oh, and by the way. They’re actually French weapons. Renamed “SCALP-EG “.
6th not 5th. US, china, Germany, Japan, India and then the UK
but as much as we’d like, just about numbers of units, it’s about our continued ethos of being built around an expeditionary stance if the Falklands happened again tomow what would we deploy? a carrier group, some submarines? all the archers? it wouldn’t be enough to take jersey.
Plus Yorkshire
Well said mate 🇬🇧 👏
Arse kisser 😘
Thanks for that contribution
Don’t be nasty your mum loves it!
Can you leave peoples nasty mum’s out of it please I have a delicate constitution 🤢
Ours was very unusual Empire. Never a great power except at sea, but a global power governed by law and rules decided in open courts no other country can replicate – nor tried to. Nearly all of our ‘brutal colonialism’ as now described was applied by Empire recruited forces; from Plassey to El Alamein. Our rise was due to this ability to work with Allies we didn’t stab in the back (bar Munich 1939).
Absolutely. We need to still teach these lessons at our top universities. In effect now possible as offering an alternative no one else can bring. The FCO could do with a reset in its Arabist section to ensure we continue to stay balanced. I hope The Chagos remains British. Holding the ring in that part of the world gives certainty and stability. I don’t think Mauritius gives that; whereas we do and still can. Besides which the islanders; should of course have their say; our allies.
Nothing for me to say Daniele, apart from WELL SAID.
Britain and America hold the top ten universities in the world. A remarkable achievement
I couldn’t understand British never, Britishs and especially English had direct role in killing poor civils in all over the world from Ireland to India China MENA, America, Africa. I am courageous how is your feelings and emotions when you hear that, at least 100 millions of only civils killed by Britain during last 3 centuries? Really I am only courages.
. Thdsltn. At a guess I’d say you’re delusional get medical help or at least read history correctly. As an example you do realise Britain developed 3 of the top 4 Indian cities – those being Bombay, Madras & Calcutta. As for Delhi they ended constant invasions from Astan which impoverished & terrorised the locals.
Just a observation, I think Thdsltn means “curious” when he or she says “courageous” as in “Really I am only curious.”
There is no evidence at all that the British killed 100m; its libelous to suggest that. One of the reasons they fought wars was to ensure the original populus remained in their territory. See the North Americans Indians during both the American Revolution and War of 1812, who sided with Britain. See the South African Boer War where it wasn’t only about minerals but about the movements of peoples.
Name a country that doesn’t have similar issues in their past? There isn’t one.
They did however happen before any of us were born and there is nothing we can do to undo it.
It’s always vaguely interesting to look at which countries in Europe, the Middle East or Asia have had a go at invading, colonizing or empire building. Almost everyone had a go at being either Top Military Nation or at least at regional superpower over the last 3000 or so years, or even tiny spots like Macedonia or countries like Portugal or Holland. The few holdouts (e.g., Switzerland or Ireland) often had periods where their mercenaries were the most feared or were famed for terrible brutality (e.g., Belgium’s savage colonial era).
Yep, even when you look at the history of slavary and things look less clear cut. It was mainly the local tribes selling other tribes people to westerns nations.
Don’t get me wrong it is all horrific and should never have happened, but it’s not as simple a story as is often made out.
AFAIK slavery was never instituted by HMG. Happy to hear to the contrary.
HMG certainly did abolish firstly the slave trade (the RN played a huge role in ending this) and then soon after, slavery as a practice.
Life is never as straight forward. The MP of the day we’re all super wealthy and making huge money off the slave trade, so it’s close to being government led, but yeah ending it also. Not a nice period of time. The anti immigration / racism / trans rights concerns rising these days make me terrified for our future.
I think you will find that the Irish were into the game as well They invaded England and wales long before we did the same back, infact the ly conquered Cornwall and south west wales also having a good go at north wales as well… 5 century.. Irish go on mad invasion spree….
Shit the bed you can’t even troll correctly! Do make more of an effort in your attempt at being a dick! Cheers.
Hello ‘Borners! Still working for the Diplomatic Corps?
Hello mate, you know me I do try my best 👍
Who are you, where are you from, and what are you talking about?
All very valid questions
How many of their own people have these ‘countries’ killed since the British Empire was wound up? Nothing makes the era of British rule of many parts of the world look quite so good as what has happened in those places since.
Yet here you are…
All that George has said is true and you can add we are the worlds 5 largest exporter and our levels of both of upward and inward investment are staggering, which makes the U.K. a true globalised nation but to judge wealth by GDP is very misleading. By PPP we are 10th and our GDP per capita ranks us as low as 28th (provisional 2024 figures). The wealth gap in the U.K. has increased dramatically since the 1970s and all this matters because we need all our population to be well cared for, housed, educated and contributing to our economy for the future challenges we face.
Our manufacturing base has been severely reduced since the 1970s and we seem to be on the cusp of loosing key industrial capabilities such as producing virgin steel. This matters for the production of many military vehicles and ships and yes little Belgium actually produces more tonnage of the steel than the U.K.
Whilst personnel numbers matter, in any military conflict that extends beyond a few months, economic and industrial muscle decides the winner and not how brave or skilled your military are. This why the US is so worried about China.
We have begun to realise this with some support for steel making, restarting artillery production and trying to rebuild our shipbuilding capabilities but it is hard and we are struggling to do so. It will take a couple of decades of consistent and targeted funding to turn these around to a level where we need to be. Whether we have that time is highly debatable but rebuilding your industrial base is not a short term project but it does seem like our politicians are beginning to see the light, which makes me more confident.
The fourth pillar of defence is the strength of your economy and many on here seem to overlook that fundamental part of the equation.
Well done George for a great article.
I have been banging on about the need for reindustrialisation for sometime and how long it takes to regenerate the a skilled and experienced engineering workforce.
We also need to encourage industry to invest in productivity. I was interested to hear a couple of SME owners talking on the news about the National Insurance increase, saying they would have to decide whether to hire more people or pay their current workforce more and invest in great automation. So oddly, driving up the cost of labour might help to increase productivity.
So more people to be trained and more investment into productivity will take time but is needed. There is also the public health issue, overweight kids, mental health (waits for the flack), etc. needs to be understood and solved.
Bottom line is we need to move away from the low wage, low productivity economy. I am not sure that this government entirely gets it, or any other politicians to be frank, but simply going for house building whilst needed isn’t going to generate the kind of sustained long term growth we need nor is it going to make much impact on the sectors we need to grow, steel, tech, energy, etc.
Access to rare earth metals is in the news at the moment. We import them in the devices we buy so support research into recycling tech. Some universities are looking at proteins that latch onto different minerals as a way of recovering alloyed materials and have demonstrated very positive results. So pile into that sort of tech and stop sending valuable stuff back to China and others for them to recycle, add value and send back!
In short, we need significant restructuring of our economy.
Our biggest problem is a can’t do mentality. We can do it if we stay the course and make sensible decisions at the right time and accept that with the best will in the world we will get it wrong from time to time…
Cheers CR
Sorry rambled a bit there.
You are absolutely right. To get real growth we need more production (or it’s just inflation). That needs labour, capital, land and entrepreneurs. Labour needs reasonably priced houses, and all that comes with that, from schools and transport to drains and Internet. But to be workers, they also need work! We need low cost risk capital, something the UK financial industry doesn’t provide and never really has, cheap energy and fast planning permission. Do all that, and I believe the entrepreneurs will flock.
Other than obvious weakness in mass with our current military inventory our inability to produce many fundamental parts of key equipment at home is a real worry and impediment to any significant uplift. An example is having some steel for all our subs sourced from France. Whilst mentioning new subs any that rely on a US supplied Combat system should be avoided and we need to maintain our own sovereign capability unless we are totally convinced by written agreement that are once great ally will not try and screw us.
I am sure many will say it is unrealistic to have all manufacturing home based but our level of foreign produced equipment is too high and became so only in the last 25 years.
It could and can be reversed with the right investment, which is needed in an environment where sadly the US is no longer a reliable ally and we face genuine strategic challenges.
Hahaha hard facts don’t trump (pardon the expression) chest-thumping jingoism; nostalgic pride in an invented rose-tinted history always makes the right trash nationalists all misty eyed 😂
Hello lips meet froth, froth, lips, good now wipe them good lad.
Trump to Starmer. You could take Russia right?
Starmer er no.
The answer should have been an emphatic based upon Russia’s combat performance in Ukraine the UK would cause disproportionately high casualties too Russia if there was a war.
However the EU and ENato should most definitely be able to defeat Russia and probably could if well led, clear military aims and commitment from an alliance of nations such as Norway, UK, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, Italy, Poland, Baltics, Spain, The Netherlands then together yes we should be able to defeat Russia.
The UK does need to urgently resolve recruitment and retention add numbers and head count back onto armed forces. Army needs to grow by 10K, navy and RAF by 5K.
Fix the armed forces accomodation, pay and conditions. Make sure they are equipped and have munitions and logistics at depth.
I agree the prospect facing Russia of expanding its ‘Special Operation’ anywhere else soon are very poor.The Europeans (in addition to Ukraine) I would back to the hilt are the Poles, Finns (now) and Norway. The rest I am unsure about; either reluctant or very small.
It’s not so much we could take Russia it’s we on our own could not overcome geography and the tyranny of distance.. essentially Russia can hide its stuff from the RN and RAF using distance.. we just have to sit back and take it on the infrastructure.. in the end we would get geopolitically bored of having our stuff knocked down before Russia got bored of us knocking their stuff down. But the reality is neither the UK or Russia if they went to war with each other could ever knock their stuff down other out or even drive the other to strategic exhaustion.. neither side has the mass to take down the other from distance… we would just be both suffer greatly.. unless we nuclear weapons led each other to death.
I quite like it that we Brits find self aggrandisement is best left left to ‘act-tors’. I agree a few tweaks socially, politically and military here and there would help. Teaching our majority population not to feel guilty at giving the rest of the globe stuff they still use every day, or our children that we Brits are not the font of all that is evil, would be a good place to start.
Nothing in this article should surprise anyone with detailed understanding of how the MOD has allowed the UK’s military services to be reduced in size, have stocks of spare equipment and munitions and other supplies reduced to negligent levels while at the same time having a procurement process that seems to aim to revise and adjust requirements, baselines and costs rather than actually committing to giving the now limited UK manufacturers with a clear reason to exist. Add on the habit of retiring equipment earlier than planned while accepting delivery delays creating not so much capability gaps as capability chasms and the more recent debacle on recruitment is just icing on the cake. We, as a nation, deserve better from both the government (of any hue) and the MOD.
Rant over.
It’s clear that the demands and needs of the Strategic Defence Review (what) must be developed into the Defence Industrial Strategy (how) to be actionable and so worth the paper It’s written on.
Only the long term demand is actionable for the investment required to build the manufacturing capability and capacity to scale up to best value volumes. The traditional purchasing method of competitive tendering misses the reality that sub scale is too expensive so must be replaced with a Europe first long term endeavour. When products are complex and specialised the pretence that they can be bought like a commodity is wrong and historically collapsed the rationale for investment.
If you are in endless competition with adversaries you are obliged to innovate, which is the highest risk, distant from serial production of a standard part. So effective communication and expectation management is essential. A once in 30 years Aircraft Carrier build is nothing like a one every year Frigate build pipeline. All stakeholders have to be educated to avoid the common misunderstandings.
One of the best articles here in years.
Bravo.
And yes, soft power matters.
Indeed soft power is vital as most conflict is actually sub kinetic..but soft power can become meaningless without hard power to back it up..in the same way as hard power can become useless if there is no soft or political power.
What’s happened to the site today!
First George comes out with two zinger articles, and then fixes the comments?
2.5% seems to have gone to his head!
LOL.
Sadly when you go below a magic level of funding everything starts to slowly decay. Capital projects become less cost effective as you buy less, have short production runs, yet introduce in year delays to balance the budget.
Not having the capital to start new programs means equipment is kept on far longer than it should be and becomes more and more expensive to maintain for less and less effectiveness
Staff become over stretched as they don’t have time to rebalance and keep up the correct level of training..you loss staff more quickly and recruiting becomes more and more burdensome and more and more expensive but your staff become less effective and skill full as they burn out quicker, leave sooner and have less chance to train..
essentially by spending less you get less value for money and you enter a death spiral of ever increasing inefficiency.
This is my observation of the NHS…but you could slot it strait into our armed forces.
I couldn’t understand British never, Britishs and especially English had direct role in killing poor civils in all over the world from Ireland to India China MENA, America, Africa. I am courageous how is your feelings and emotions when you hear that, at least 100 millions of only civils killed by Britain during last 3 centuries? Really I am only courages.
Yawn.
Bore off and stop repeating the same nonsense.
I’m glad to see you’re not letting education get in the way of your ignorance.
I see David Lammey has a covert profile on here!
As a first-born English-Canadian I am glad to see George speak clearly and well of the UK. There are so many idiots so quick to criticize and bemoan the state of the UK and I know its not proper to blow your own horn but there is so much for the UK to be proud of. I am very proud of my roots and hope Canada will become a better partner with you and Europe…especially with Russia to the North and America to the South.
One word, CANZUK
CANZUK has been bandied about in Canada for quite sometime but has now taken on a whole new meaning now for Canadians. That and deeper trade with the EU
Unfortunately Canada under Trudeau acted like CANZUK was a joke. Too late for Canada to back track now, Canada picked the USA over the commonwealth a long time ago, they are stuck with that choice now.
The Conservative Party have always supported it and many in the Liberal party ( Mark Carney included) are supportive of it.
Trudeau is in the rear view now for Canada. That and certain aspects of the Liberal foreign policy.
The USA as a Canadian trading party still makes sense and I am fully supportive of it but Canada can now not put most of its eggs in that basket.
Canada and the UK enjoy 99.9% tariff free trade currently and Canada’s third largest foreign investment is in the UK.
Why exactly, is it too late and why are they stuck with the US?
Jim, Justin has been fired after a Donald threat and the Libs are far behind in the polls.
If you don’t blow your own trumpet, who will?
That’s something that cannot be levelled at Trump, and Americans seem more widely patriotic.
We don’t do it enough. I’m proud of my country and don’t give a fig what others think of that.
Agree, wholeheartedly.
I am well aware that I am lucky to have been born in the UK. If I had been born in a developing country in the ’60’s and contracted polio as I did I would not have survived. If I had been born in the US, my family would not have been able to afford the health insurance for me…
I bemoan our politicians, but am very thankful that we have the NHS, a pretty good education system, etc. Much is creaking but it can be fixed. We just need a bit more belief in ourselves and to be fair none of those basic services would have been achieved without political will at crucial moments in our history.
So we can get things done we just need to remember that we can – more can do, less can’t do…
Cheers CR
Why feel the need to blow it at all? Who are you trying to impress?
Merkins are ignorant of the quote “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”. Strange how those with (understandably) low self esteem love to brag about stuff that they have had absolutely no part in “achieving”.
Still, if Italian ladyboys puff out their tiny chests with Pride, I’m sure the world will take notice 🤣👏🏾
Usual gutter comment twisting what I meant.
You’re very immature, I will have to speak to your mum…..hold on she is still asleep, I will wake her……
Well I sort of do care what others think but it’s more about being irritated when they lay into our historical actions with a modern lens or pretend we are less than one of the 8 great powers in the world.
I quite agree. I meant I don’t care if people disagree with my own personal view, like the piece of trash that insulted me above.
On a wider field, yes, I care what others think too. It’s important a nation has a sense of pride in itself.
Yes there are a few people with some nasty small person attitudes who seem to think it’s acceptable to be vile just because people are debating things that don’t really have right or wrong answers and that person has a different view from them.
An excellent article, and perhaps the most important point was in regard to the loss of experienced personnel at the mid career point.
Every day on LinkedIn there are articles about the cost and time in regards to recruiting staff, and how simple measures can help you retain those already working for you.
Do those leaving get asked why, does the “management” take any notice of the reasons if it happens, or are the responses just filed away.
Change in Pension benefits, Pay as You Dine, absolutely appalling accommodation, especially when most of the time you have no choice in where you will be posted. Time to sort out the “soft” parts of the military. A satisfied soldier is one you will retain.
Punching above it’s weight has always been non sense. We have the 6th largest economy in the world (way down if GDP per capita) and probably around 6th or lower strongest military. Making us punch at our weight or below.
The UK has a strong strong military for fighting in far off lands where the enemy is also not on home soil but if it was a all out war scenario we are weak due to lack of man power.
There are nations with smaller economies that have far more powerful armies, for example Israel.
Israel has a more powerful army because they have very different priorities to us. Israel doesn’t have aircraft carriers, ASW frigates, Destroyers, nuclear submarines, long range transport aircraft and so on because they don’t need it, their threats are very clearly defined and shape their procurement choices. Iran isn’t going to conduct a naval landing on Israel in the same way that the French aren’t going to be driving Leclerc’s through the channel tunnel.
Can you even fit a Leclerc through the channel tunnel?
They’re big, even by MBT standards.
And if they are to come to UK it would be to protect UK, from whatever attack, not to invade. UK is our dearest friend. Our eyes are on the eastern border. Our vigilence is on securing sea-lines with the rest of the world.
One of the main reasons our defence forces are in a crisis is the inability to recognise fully that this is not 1945 and Britain is not a global power. We extricated ourselves from empire without the disastrous efforts of France to recover or retain theirs. We continued to fund significant military forces until the end of the Cold War, despite as Dean Acheson remarked having lost an empire but not yet found a role. But instead of 1989 being seen as an opportunity to rethink Britain’s defence, it was instead used to justify drastic cuts. The 1998 SDR was a disaster. For no good reason, Britain would prioritise expeditionary warfare so that we could intervene in the areas we had successfully decolonised. If,instead, we had adopted a more rational approach, defining what we needed to defend the UK as top priority, we might have avoided the dangerous all round decline that attempting to cling on to a global role with far too little money has caused.
But the current budget level ought to be sufficient to fund modern well equipped forces focussed on their prime role of direct defence of the UK.
Certainly the recruitment and retention problem has to be fixed and procurement has to be less wasteful. But instead of trying to be a mini USA we should rather be a maxi Sweden.
The current budget is insufficient to our needs. It doesn’t matter if you think it ought to be sufficient or not. It isn’t. You can increase it or you can argue your shoulds and oughts. I could cite reasons why it’s not enough: the £12bn on nuclear, the proportion spent on non-UK military capability, eg Ukraine, pensions, operations, etc; the constant mind changing and penny pinching of politicians and the gold plating of generals. But it doesn’t matter why. The facts are plain. The size of our military has dropped below the point they can do what our politicians ask of them, whether in the Ukraine or the Red Sea or at home.
We can debate efficiency and focus, as we have been doing for decades, but it won’t change the facts. It never does. Without more money the military will continue to decline, and poiliticians will not be able to do what they believe is in the best interests of the country.
The point of being a maxi Sweden does resonate with me. However, I do passionately believe we have obligations to the Commonwealth countries, especially those who helped and supported us through the last World Wars. There are some Commonwealth countries that are either openly hostile or at best ambiguous with their friendliness to the UK that no longer deserve our help in their hour of need. This does not mean we are trying to regain our lost Empire, rather in “our friends” hours of need we will support them, even if that requires military intervention.
I have been looking at the Swedish “Total Defence Duty” model that applies to all Swedish citizens. Where as soon as they reach the age of 18, you could be conscripted and assessed where you serve in to either the military, civilian service or general national service. The Finish conscription system is similar, though they more focus on the military requirement, and the draft is predominately for males. The conscription for Sweden and Norway and the way the conscripts are then placed into the reserves is more pertinent to these countries due to their much smaller populations of 10M and 5.5M respectively. Especially when you consider the UK has a population of 68M.
In essence, the UK should be able to draft a massive amount of the population for the military if required. However, I don’t believe there is the incentive to do so. What are the benefits of joining the UK’s military currently? I do believe that the recruitment and retention is the biggest fire the Government needs to sort out as a priority. There is plenty they could do to motivate people to “join up”. Especially if part of joining up, you are given skills that outside of the military, such as industry needs.
When I served, we were given courses on IT etc, that were only partially complete and the certification you received once you completed the course, was not recognized by industry. This could have been solved by giving people recognized courses, but with a retention clause. Not only would you have better skilled people, but when the time came to leave, you were now a more employable person that industry needed. Similarly the military should look at more degree sponsorship. Where they pay for the degree and perhaps some living wage. But the clause being either you join up after completing your course on a short term engagement or you pay it back. Would this be a better incentive for the young to enlist perhaps, rather than sitting with a massive debt that they’re unlikely to payback until they are in their 50’s.
For me, one of the main reasons for leaving was that there weren’t enough people with my skill set. Which meant I kept getting nobbled for deployments and operations. There’s nothing worse than coming up from a 6 monther, to find out, that in a couple of months or even two weeks, that you’d be being sent out again, as someone on the roulemont register has gone sick etc. The down sizing of the services causes a lot of the retention problems. As there are not enough people who are suitably qualified and experienced to do the job. Therefore, you are expected to do more with less. It simply doesn’t work as you get very quickly burnt out. Not to mention what it means for family life. Currently its even worse since I left, there is simply not enough personnel to cope with the standard amount of work, let alone what is required for detachments or possible arising policing operations.
A Brit who understands reality unlike most of the commentors on this forum. A good middleweight can punch above his weight all he wants, but he’ll still get floored by a good heavyweight.
Pretty sure a smaller fellas been giving all the heavyweights a bit of a doing lately.
Er… no.
The irony of MAGA talking about reality!!
The loss of empire no longer has much resonance and statements about finding a new role is just old hat, which belongs in the last century. The current reality is the U.K. is the fourth largest exporter on the planet and is an island trading nation with 98% of it transported by sea. That means we have a vested interest in the worlds ocean chokepoints on which we are totally reliant. You can add to this vulnerability our offshore energy and data cables systems, which underpin our modern way of life.
We cannot afford to be Sweden and sit at home because our lifeblood is still global trade. That means we have to have a capability that goes beyond Europe in conjunction with like minded nations to protect commerce and free trade. We cannot afford Pax Britannica anymore but we still need to support our allies wherever they maybe and have important commitments across the globe and not just in Europe. We also have a debt of honour to many commonwealth nations that cannot just be discarded because modern Britons can’t be bothered to read about our history.
SDR 1998 was the best attempt post Cold War at defining force levels that balanced defence of the U.K. with a capability to project power further afield that reflected the U.K’s status in the world. Unfortunately all this effort was then wasted in two disastrous wars that has devastated the U.K. military capabilities.
Europe is our backyard and we do need to ensure no nation dominates the continent but that policy has not changed in nearly 500 years, however, we also must see beyond that narrow perspective to maintain our wealth and security.
We can never be Sweden.
Agreed. We cannot sit at home. The playing field is out there. We leave it and others take advantage.
That means expeditionary forces and a strong RN.
Which is why Labour’s NATO first comments always worry me, incase they morph into NATO only.
I don’t think you should just worry about Labour because it applies to the Tories, which have a large number of ex Army within the party and the Lib Dems who are obsessed with all things European.
To be fair when you get beyond the usual ex Army pundits who blame everything on the carriers many do seem understand Britain’s unique geo strategic position and do point out that our great vulnerability and historic strength is in the maritime domain.
The one part of article that did make me cough is our leadership of a NATO battle group in Estonia. I am sure those U.K. personnel involved are professional as is to be expected from the British military but I doubt the numbers we have committed to this force extends beyond 1500.
However, for me it is more fundamental than just numbers that are wrong but we need others to do this particularly the Germans with us in support. Our role is to provide the bulk of the force to cover the maritime domain of north west Europe and not the land based element. That clearer division of tasks and roles with our European allies needs to be worked on as our rogue ally across the pond sadly cannot be relied upon.
That doesn’t mean the British Army is redundant far from it but requires reinforcement for a more flexible and genuine expeditionary role so that it can enter the line where required. This reinforcement needs to go hand in hand with the increase in the size of the RN and RAF, which are fundamentally required for the defence of the mainland U.K.
All this requires more than 2.5% and the politicians know it but will they act?
Very good points, I agree that perhaps our main role for the Army should be home defence of the realm rather than expeditionary which we seem to be reasonably good at. While that remains as support for mainland Europe we have to ensure that we can defend our homes directly and that is where the Navy and Air Force comes in. We can remain the unsinkable aircraft carrier only as long it can be maintained.
This is a good piece, George.
It needs a follow up on what has actually been done under the previous mainly headless chicken Government, and the current version that is actually Governing.
I’d identify the gradual improvement in naval procurement organisation over recent years as a previous Govt +ve, and the ditching of the Cameron-imposed procurement setup as one more recent that just kicked-in.
Plenty of downsides though.
Superb article George.
I cannot wait to see one of the QE’s visit here in Australia this year, it will be a long time since Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal did so in the 80’s. And in 2027 we will see Astutes based at Fleet Base West. (Many expats in Rockingham area).
In Conclusion to his book “British Battleships of World War One,” R.A Burt writes:
“By the end of the war, the Grand Fleet has porved itself supremely in command of the seas. It’s ships and crews were the most battle-experienced in the world, and much had been learned during the four years of conflict…
“The British battleships of the dreadnought period could claim the following attributes; while no figures can be found to show that any foreign fleet surpass the combination they represented:
The less satisfactory aspects of the British battlefleet have been much publicised, though with scant regard for the facts. Perhaps the worlds of Commander E.S. Land, USN, provide a suitable perspective on the argument:
‘In my country they have a soap advertisement which claims for it’s product “99.44 per cent pure”. Personally, I am fed up with this ivory soap purity of everything pertaining to war material that bears the label “Made in Germany”. We Anglo-Saxons are too prone to think the other fellow’s goods are superior to our own.’
Let me introduce myself. I have an interest in military matters but have not served and do not hold myself out as an an ‘expert’.
I sympathise with the USA view that they will soon be busy containing China and that it’s time Europe looked after itself against Russia. But I want to ask this:-
(i) how strong is Russia in its present state conventionally compared with the current eNATO?
(ii) what is the likelihood of Russia wanting a second bite at Ukraine? Sure, a ceasefire will allow Russia to reorganise and rearm but so it will Ukraine. The major Europe countries have started the painful political and industrial job of growing their military, so does not everyone just get bigger at the same time and the quid pro quo still stand?
(iii) if the USA has thousands of people (and lots of dollars) invested in digging up Ukraine is Trump not right that this a half-decent deterrent?
Thanks.
It’s all very well having all this capability, but however we lack any sort of leadership willing to actually use what we have at our disposal, currently the soft power we have is being eroded away by limp wristed politicians who want to give away this countries assets and cash to everyone lining up to take them.
Our military assets while good to look at, lack any sort of proper support to function as intended in a crisis situation.
Our manufacturing capability has been utterly destroyed and we now have almost no capability to survive on our own, if there was anything like another world war and we were subject to another blockade across the Atlantic we couldn’t survive. Admittedly the chances of this are low but it lays bare how hollowed out our industries have become.
For decades now we have focused on being the nice person of the world to make up for our past transgressions and virtually every country is taking advantage of that, we need to grow a diplomatic spine.
I consider the U.K. armed forces to be the Honey Badger of the free world. And hopefully if the government comes forward with the much needed investment already sharp teeth will only get sharper.
When thatcher sold Royal Ordnance it had 16 factories, there are now five. This was the end of being a military power. Now mid range depleted power with politicians puffed up with over stated grandeur and colonial guilt.
I believe at the same time we have 16 ordinance factories the Warsaw part had around 3 million men and 27,000 nuclear weapons pointed directly at Western Europe.
Not quite the same today.
apparently, over 70k candidates are rejected every year, most of them for puny reasons (according to the source I read, only 20% are due to medical reasons).
sort this out, and the UK will be able to add a lot of people in a short space of time.
yet i suspect that the reason this has not been sorted out is because solving it would immediately entail a substantial increase in expenditure.
imagine how much money would be needed to accommodate a net increase of 5 to 10k soldiers, not forgetting the means needed to train them.
the truth is the country is okay with having an underfunded, undermanned Army, Navy and Air Force.
the rationale is: if a war happens, the only solution is to implement conscription, and then the human needs will be obtained.
Another reason it hasn’t been sorted out is that the last government was the one to bring in Capita for army recruitment, and they failed to hit targets since Day 1, yet still the Conservative government renewed the contract.
Simply booting Capita – with the legitimate reason that they’ve never once met recruitment targets – and going back to the old system would help things considerably.
In their wisdom they have given the contract to Serco another outsourcer !
we are a powerful country size wise successive governments of both of the main parties dropped the ball when the cold war ended. the forces went from a protective institution to a financial burden. and policy was flawed becoming a expeditionary organisation rather than the offensive fighting force cost the forces, especially the navy and the air force deeply. thetrashing of the industrial base and our ability to produce what is needed is like the size of the forces gone. and there is no sign of it changing.
Very interestingly Reaves has just changed the rules on the national wealth fund for supporting investment in green industries can now also use the fund to support the development of the defence industry… essentially now there is a separate defence industry funding stream from the MOD, the 27.8 billion national wealth fund that had been created for green industries.. starmer and reeves really do seem to have had brain transplants.
While we have the capacity to deploy a divisional capability we lack the means to sustain it effectively for long. And while that capacity is deployed we have very little in reserve and a significant inability to defend our ports, airbases, manufacturing and repair capability. It is pointless pretending to play with the big boys when that means there is next to nothing left! And expensive aircraft carriers or two mobile air bases don’t really help much in a European conflict, unless we can maintain overall air superiority at or near the front. And with today’s weapons that is a huge area. If the US does in a fit of Trumpian pique decide to pull out of NATO it does not mean NATO will collapse it just means we all have to pay and play a bit more. NATO does exist outside of US. Perhaps that will be a good thing in order to focus our efforts in self-defence across the immediate European and Arctic regions. We can re-purpose the US bases for ourselves!
Trump needs to be reminded of a few things. The only time Article 5 was invoked was in US favour, and led by ourselves. We were principle partners in the post 911 campaigns. And of course a lot of sophisticated equipment is sold by them to NATO partners so if they pull out there will be less profits to be made by their defence companies. Not sure how BAE would survive but their US subsidiaries would go. And a re-focus on European development partners would be a good thing. US has a lot to lose. We cannot ignore that US military interests involve a lot more than just NATO.
did UK Def close down the comment section for all new articles??
Sir Keir met with DJT last week. Now what will happen? It does not sound or feel like a Vald love in, so far.
Don’t think we have much influence, in 1965 we paid 3 million to keep Chago’s islands, now we are giving them away on some flimsy legal ruling and having billions extorted. Expect deep sea mining for Nickel and other metals will ruin the ecosystems once control given away. The trigger warnings for books, plays ,films and paintings at Universities makes the country look mentally weak along with erosion of free speech.
check
F35 is NOT going to be modified to carry the French SCALP-EG (also known as STORM SHADOW).
well said. Aside from filling existing capability gaps we should be improving training, access to facilities, our munitions, reserves and fixing property & procurement.
Investments like improving living accommodation will improve retention, improve energy efficiency, reduce costs and meet the govt’s goals for growth (work for local contractors) and reducing emissions.
Some of the funds needs to go into ensuring we get a better bang for our buck and expanding the industrial base through ensuring a pipeline of works over many years.
They should dust down the 1981 SDR for lessons on expanding the reserves and improving our air defences, and try to reverse the more harmful aspects of Future Soldier.
Here’s Clodette Victor, From Los Angeles, California. I am 51 year old, got 3 girls, My awesome boy died at 26 years old, he was a digital assets investor and trader, I remembered giving him money to get on it after his college graduation and gradually he kept on pushing until he became an hero, Raphael by name, I tried to access my wallet which we signed up together but I couldn’t remember my details, I was asked for 6 digit code during transfer, after several denied attempt to make a withdrawal I stumbled into a hacker on tiktok.com who a friend mentioned about how he helped people to reclaim back scammed funds so I communicated with her, the hacker happened to be a male so I was more courageous but not knowing she was a Pilipino scammer, after that incident I was so scared to face another and I was ashamed of telling my experience to anyone because I taught they all gonna feel disappointed at me and call me names for being scammed, after 3 months of being scammed with a loss of 17.9 BTC I saw an news headline from CBC pop up on my mobile and when I viewed it behold it was RECOVERYCOINGROUP AT GMA1L D0T C0M I saw; firstly I had my doubt but as we get along I decided to entrust Recovery Coin Group with my funds recovery job and according to time given they delivered not just a mere delivery, I received my scammed funds back to my wallet address, such a great service needs to be spread abroad so other scam victims can recover their scammed funds, for easier access reach the above email.
Hi Andy Reeves, what some call our warfighting division is 3 (UK) Div and has the heavy equipment in it – tanks, Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs), Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs), Self propelled Guns (SPGs) etc.
It should have Divisional-level armoured recce (was mounted in CVR(T) Scimitar and now to be Ajax) operating ahead of the brigades. It doesn’t.
It should have a Divisional Artillery Group directed by ‘Commander Artillery’ or ‘Commander Joint Fires’ of the Div HQ – it doesn’t quite have that – it is all shoved into a single brigade.
It should have three similarly sized and structured armoured brigades with tanks, IFVs and SPGs…plus other supporting stuff. We have only two armoured brigades (not 3) comprising the minimum possible number of tanks (just one armoured regiment ie tank battalion in US-speak), those tanks (Challenger 2s) being up to 25 years old and not materially upgraded. The IFVs (Warriors) carrying the infantry are tracked wagons with 30mm cannons, also have had little by way of upgrades since first fielding in the mid-80s and they will soon be replaced by wheeled APCs (Boxer) which only have a Machine Gun. The SPGs are not in the Brigade group as they are elsewhere.
The third brigade (Deep Strike Recce Brigade) is an odd mix of Ajax recce vehicles and artillery and is intended to fight the deep battle but if the artillery is too far back then we lose some considerable benefit of their range. They are not a classic manouevre brigade with tanks and Infantry.
The enablers for the three brigades and the division as a whole, include logistics and equipment support (maintenence) and is regarded as being somewhat insufficient and in part includes Army Reserve personnel who take time to be mobilised.
Nick C, You wrote: “Very good points, I agree that perhaps our main role for the Army should be home defence of the realm rather than expeditionary which we seem to be reasonably good at. While that remains as support for mainland Europe we have to ensure that we can defend our homes directly and that is where the Navy and Air Force comes in. We can remain the unsinkable aircraft carrier only as long it can be maintained.”
The army has always had multiple roles. Military Home Defence is just one of them. It cannot be the main role of the army. 3(UK) Div is optimised for warfighting against a peer or near-peer armoured/mechanised opponent – ie Russia….and they are a long way from these shores. Certainly some of the Army Reserve in 1 Div could be tasked with MHD.