In June 2018, the UK Government released a policy document entitled ‘Global Britain: Delivering on our International Ambition’.
This paper was partially aimed at a post-Brexit Britain and the intended role of the nation in the world moving forward. It was followed up by further documents including: “Global Britain in a Divided World” (2022) and “Global Britain in a Competitive Age: The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy” (2021).
Given the COVID-19 pandemic, massive increase in inflation and ongoing concerns over the future of the Armed Forces’ finances, how far has the nation gotten in achieving the aims set out in the original policy, and how much has the policy’s aims changed in the last 5 years?
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
The 2018 policy stated: “The three centres of the global economy and political influence are in North America, overwhelmingly the United States, in Europe and its neighbourhood; and in the Indo-Pacific region. Maintaining influence in these areas is essential to making Global Britain a success. At the same time, to realise fully the vision of Global Britain means being active and influential in all regions, the institutions of the rules-based international order and key global issues.”
In the time since it was written, the UK’s cooperation with Europe and the USA has
obviously increased significantly, in part due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
We’ve also seen the UK’s deployment of the new carrier strike group around the world,
with a particular focus of that deployment being the Asia-Pacific region, although as above
the situation in Europe has taken centre stage since then, and as HMS Queen Elizabeth
leaves port this week heading back out on another deployment, this time focused in the
Mediterranean, it becomes clear that “Global Britain” may not be as global as was hoped.
While NATO’s focus remains on Ukraine and the ongoing Russian invasion of the country,
developments in the Asia-Pacific region are startling and should be of great cause for
concern to the UK Government. Over the last week as an example, we’ve seen North Korea unveil their first modified Romeo-class ballistic missile submarine (hull number 841), China and the Philippines come into conflict over ongoing Chinese Coast Guard attempts to block their transit, and China’s claim to more territory at sea (the infamous 9-dash line seemingly now being re-drawn on official Chinese Government maps as a 10-dash line) causing uproar among its neighbours including Taiwan, Malaysia and the Philippines. The South China Sea and surrounding waters are fast becoming a potential flash-point with China’s increasingly militaristic and expansionist actions posing a threat not just to those nations surrounding it, but also threatening global trade and the safety of key British allies such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
Part of the original proposals for a Global Britain included a “pivot” towards the Asia-Pacific region, with plans initially for the forward-deployment of a pair of offshore patrol vessels – presently HMS Tamar (P233) and HMS Spey (P234) – to the region, and intentions to increase the permanent presence with a future frigate deployment to bases in the Indian Ocean, Australia or Singapore.
The Type 31 Frigate programme is now underway, with 5 ships planned and 2 of those under construction. Plans for a follow-on second batch or near-identical Type 32 Frigate design have been tentatively confirmed for “beyond-2030”, especially amidst ongoing indication of further defence cuts (with the Army’s rumoured further cut to full-time strengths making national news briefly earlier in 2023).
Also lacking has been firm commitments to additional F-35B “Lightning II” fast-jets, with the current 48 jets originally due to have increased to 138 jets, but with the last proposals suggesting this would be reduced to 74 airframes, but no further order yet been placed and the planned follow-on GCAP (formerly Project Tempest) not expected to fly until the 2030s.
The only positive move towards the Asia-Pacific tilt was the announcement of the AUKUS
programme between the United States, UK and Australia. The key component of this plan
was the future SSN-AUKUS, a proposed class of nuclear-powered attack submarines to be
built for and by both the UK and Australia with assistance from the USA.
Although details remain largely unconfirmed, there have been suggestions that the programme will see the UK’s SSN fleet increase from the currently expected 7-ship Astute-class to 10 or more of the new design beyond 2035. It is expected that a small portion of these new submarines could be forward-deployed to Australia to work alongside Australia’s own SSN-AUKUS boats (up to 8 expected to be built by the 2050s).
The presence of a frigate and submarines in the region would be a huge step forward
towards the Global Britain aims stated in 2018, but the plan is unlikely to be realised until
the late-2030s at the earliest and as I’ve already mentioned, China’s increasingly aggressive behaviour and incredible military production may render such a deployment too little too late.
China’s naval shipyards alone are turning out an astonishing number of new warships each year, with a US Navy briefing slide estimating the nation has 20 times the shipbuilding capacity of the USA at the present time (see article). The US estimate suggests that China will have a core battle force of 475 warships by 2035, and this does not include the Coast Guard or militia groups China has used in recent months to harass neighbouring nation’s warships.
By 2040, it is believed China will operate a fleet including 6 fleet aircraft carriers. Data is limited on exact numbers, but the 2022-2024 shipbuilding period is expected to see some 60 new warships enter PLAN service.
If the UK wishes to continue to maintain a global role and adhere to the original 2018 mission statement, a military presence significantly larger than an OPV is going to be
necessary, especially amidst ongoing US political posture changes, North Korean nuclear
ambitions and uncertainty for the future among Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the other
southeast Asian countries who will be looking to the west for leadership, should China
continue to expand its land claims in the region.
An oft-proposed solution to the aim of a global presence was the “Modern Sloop of War”
suggestion, dubbed the “Black Swan-class” (2012). Although partially realised in the Batch 2 River-class OPVs, the concept never fully materialised due to a combination of factors.
The proposal was for a light ocean-going combatant that would serve as a launch platform for unmanned aerial and unmanned surface vehicles, with a unit cost of £65m per ship. The basic specifications proposed are laid out below:
– £65m unit cost
– 2,000 to 4,000 tons displacement
– Diesel-electric propulsion capable of maximum of 24kts and cruise speeds of 10-16kts
– Endurance of 30-90 days
– A core crew of 8 personnel with capacity for up to 60 if required
– A main gun of some description (likely a 30mm autocannon up to 57mm DP gun)
– Small hangar for 1 medium and 1 light UAV
– Large flight deck capable of landing a Chinook
– Capacity for 2x Rigid-Inflatable boats
Now most of these specifications sound a lot like the River-class OPVs, however these ships were never build in the quantities required. A “Batch 3 River-class” could well provide the extra numbers needed, or something based on the Royal Navy’s new XV Patrick Blackett (X01) experimental ship.
Another key factor in the UK’s global reach would be air power. A review this week by a
parliamentary committee has criticised the continuous cuts to air power in the UK, noting
that of the 4 major powers in Europe, the UK has the smallest fast-jet fleet and that the
recent decommissioning of the C-130J fleet and reduced size of the future E-7A “Wedgetail” fleet are both areas of concern. Once again, fixes will not come quickly and as with the Navy a rectification of the issues to meet any global threats will not arrive until the mid-to-late 2030s at the earliest, which in global affairs is a long time and could prove to late for a key ally.
The war in Ukraine has also shown how critical quantity still is. With our most recent
conflicts having been fought in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan against terrorist groups, a near-peer conflict is not something we’ve trialled equipment against. The loss this week of the first Challenger 2 main battle tank in Ukraine against Russian forces and the plans to reduce the UK fleet should be sending alarm bells throughout Whitehall. The reality is that even with allies, if the UK “whole force” were tomorrow to begin engaging a near-peer enemy like Russia, (or perhaps in light of the current climate, China is a likely candidate), the UK would run out of resources far sooner than some of our allies.
Poland appears to be learning this lesson from Ukraine the most clearly, with some
enormous military contracts in recent weeks as it seeks to re-arm itself in the face of an
aggressive Russia on the border.
Yes, the UK has allies between it and our major enemies at the moment so we are not
alone, but a Global Britain needs to be able to defend it’s interests anywhere, not just in a
corner of Europe. Only major increases in defence spending and prioritisation of key
capabilities will stop the UK Armed Forces slipping further into obscurity.
In short, Global Britain in 2023 has a long way to go.
Global Britain was little more than post Brexit propaganda, a wish to promote a Britain separate from the EU. It was not accompanied by an uplift in defence resources, the additional funding provided by Johnson was necessary just to fill the black hole in the existing equipment budget.
Since the Integrated Review, manpower levels in all 3 services have continued to shrink. Several major re-equipment programmes are progressing very slowly, resulting in further reductions in for example surface fleet numbers. Nothing in any of the committed major programmes will increase numbers, at best we will get back to an escort fleet of 19. The army, will get new or upgraded kit but will be smaller. And even this is stretching the budget.
It is evident that no political party will commit to a major increase in funding,sustained over a long period. Even if we were to double it to @ 4% of GDP, we would only be able to deliver a force a sixth or seventh the size of the USA.
Why should Britain be expected to play a major role in confronting China, a country bordered by populous and wealthy countries that are hostile to it? There are more than enough resources in the region if supported by the USA to neutralize any Chinese threat.
There is no need for Britain to “tilt” to the Pacific. Its traditional allies Australia, New Zealand are as far away from China as UK is.
Instead, focussing our efforts on areas where the threat to the UK is more immediate- home defence, defence of the near abroad especially in the far north, alongside presence in the Middle East, we might just be able to match capabilities with commitments.
A good assessment – the ever decreasing numbers of troops and personnel, hulls and airframes, pilot training etc makes this a good example of a hollowed out policy.
The ditching of some of the unrealistic plans would help the MOD is throwing millions and millions of pounds at ideas which could be done with more imagination than we’re seeing now. Motherships? The echoes could be allocated for much of this work. Yet we see it bobbing next to the wall in Pompey, tell me what can a river do that echo couldn’t?DEW? how much money was thrown at the Dragonfire project? we’ll never know will we?
If the American empire ends, and someone figures out how to neutralise the nuclear deterrent (don’t mock, it’s not impossible), then we will all regret focusing “closer to home”.
When we pulled out of India, many Princely States had failed to invest in defences, even when we’d granted them almost total independence in 1926. They were politically annihilated in 1947 by the nationalists.
If we “cut according to our cloth” and just focus on Europe, a China that has suborned the US and invested in laser defences might be a very nasty threat indeed.
We quit India because we knew we couldn’t hold it without the consent of the population. Yet we still had huge armed forces around the globe. Today we have very small armed forces and no funded plans to increase them. Given that situation, the reality is that we can contribute very little to the effort of containing China.
We should have the good sense to leave that to others and make sure our forces are capable of dealing with all likely threats at home and the near abroad. They will need all of the current budget and more to do just that.
One or two CSGs amount to quite a lot of resource to deter China from being expansionist, together with Allies such as the USN of course.
The loss of footholds in Singapore, Malta and the west indies were avoidable but nobody could see past the next days papers the base at BermudaH.m.s maribar, today, would be a prized asset especially with the issues that we still have to cover in that area such as disaster relief and ant drug related issues. Malta, apart from being a great run ashore, was strategically priceles like Gibraltar, the drawing down of the British armed forces frequently visiting the local economies took a massive hit I went for a few days ago to Gibraltar, I couldn’t recognize the place.none of the sailors regular haunt still seem to exist the locals bemoan the the effect of the abandonment(as they call it)of the rock and it’s obvious decline in viewed importance is breeding resentment the re opening of a facility such as H.M.S Rooke,R.A.F Gibraltar and the abandonment of the army presence. Has had an untold effect. In Malta you can go everywhere and see no evidence of the British military influence that was the lifeblood of the island.as for’the gut’, that den of glorious sin and debourchery it gone, bricked up only frequent visitors are cats.so sad,I hate looking backwards at what was for the few millions Mintoff wanted Britain to pay for maintaining the presence on Malta, stood against the rabid waste of today’s money, the ted heath government of the day, should have been shot in the street outside number ten.
Is China, even when a superpower with bluewater navy etc, going to practically threaten Europe?
Very good post, however just say it did kick off can’t see the UK not getting involved has the Americans expect of us and could we say no ?.And for Global Britain we have no size in our Armed forces to match this like you say. 👍
Well the U.K. can say we will help but really that help won’t be much. A squadron of aircraft, a few air transports, 1 carrier group of ships with some aircraft. Some marines perhaps 500. A brigade of troops but will take weeks to get there. 1 awacs and 1-3 P8. Some drones and equipment can be sent to other nations.
A brigade or even a division of troops has always taken weeks to get somewhere distant. But so too does a carrier group ar all elements of an RAF AEF. So what? We have assets that can move quickly and the bulk of the committed troops follow on. I don’t think we have ever been late for a war before.
Google naval inactive fleet facility and see what is there, the do it forAMARg inventory and see what is there. A agreement with the Americans to have first chance to buy any piec of kit that America is retiring, ship plane, tank, paperclip! could see us expand the u.k forces pretty quickly and not break the bank doing it. Plus it would be technology current and actually be built.
I don’t know why you all think we need millions of rank and file soldiers in 2023 to demolish whom exactly? UKSF alone would have ended this BS war in Ukraine. Our troops are warriors not conscripts. Even our F35s would have flattened the Russian defences by now. This isn’t the Second World War guys.
UKSF does not exist to destroy thousands of enemy AFVs and to recover lost territory. They would not have won the Russo-Ukraine war.
We needed large numbers of troops in both Gulf Wars, the multiple Balkans Conflicts, Afghanistan – and Op Banner in Northern Ireland. Not millions, but tens of thousands.
You are right that this isn’t the Second World War, so we do not need a 3m strong army, just a 120,000 strong army.
Good post. Indeed Global Britain was an idea conceived as the way we should position ourselves post Brexit. For many it tugged at the emotional empire hearts strings and was rationalised by the observation that the Asia Pacific region was where most of the worlds population lived and which was expected to become the focus of the worlds economic growth. The EU was characterised as being in decline with the US to follow. China was the new power and India – a democracy with a comparable population to China was seen as the West’s economic and military counter: hence Asia Pacific morphed into Indo Pacific and we are wooing Modi.
The government has worked hard to make an economic reality of Global Britain by doing trade deals with Australia, New Zealand and Pacific countries and is trying for a preferential deal with India. But China’s ambitions dwarf everything else: its desire to expand its cultural influence, its economic influence and growing military power, its technical prowess and the degree to which it has already infiltrated our educational, industrial and political establishment. The presence of Tamar and Spey provide important moral support and build diplomatic and economic relations in the region. In that sense they are probably more useful than a frigate right now. Argus would provide practical humanitarian help in disaster situations.
Meanwhile back at the ranch Russia wreaks havoc in Ukraine and huge areas of Africa are becoming failed states undermined by Islamic state, Wagner and ‘governed’ by corrupt military dictatorships. This is generating a stream of immigrants that social fabric in most European countries is struggling to handle.
Put your ideas for defence policy in a brown paper envelope to …Mr G. Schapps, Westminster,,,
Already done it, I don’t expect a prompt reply
Good work! Our democracy is not perfect but we are privileged to live in a country where we can do that. And if enough people do then it has an effect.
I send the usual grumpy e mail to the defence department and if I get a reply, which I occasionally do its of a condescending nature that smacks of ‘who do you think you are? Mere peasants like us make no difference to the blinkered mindsets of the unnamed, unaccountable invisible me and women within those corridors. I would happily pay to watch the utter panic in those corridors, should Charles mark 3 decided that he would like to review the fleet.can you picture the scene? All those crusty old admirals wailing ‘its not our fault’. We could fit the whole fleet int Pompey harbour, motherships? Drones?,DEW? IT’S SHIPS THAT ARE EXPECTED TO BE ON VIEW, NOT CONCEPT S AND EXPENSIVE IDEAS THAT WILL NEVER SEE LIGHT OF DAY AWFUL JUST AWFUL
A Total isolationist Mindset!
Ultra Left nonsense!
The U.K’s economic pivot to the Pacific Indian Ocean regions, is to take advantage of investment opportunities in a region of high growth potential.
Agree, Europe has already peaked, the reality is Germany, which is the power house of Europe was living off the cheap exports due a weak Euro, there’s no other stars in Europe. The best growth is going to come from anywhere but the EU.
👍
The German economy is not so good at the moment, surely?
Peaceful growth hopefully. The reports of Europe’s death might be exaggerated. The EU may be morphing into something more focussed.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-britain-rejoin-eu-keir-starmer-b2414299.html
Watch this space?
🥱
Peter, did manpower levels really fall in the RN and RAF as a consequence of IR21 and the associated Defence Command Paper? What were the numbers?
Also, we are not in competition with the USA so should not compare our forces to theirs. For me, a realistic goal is to be the best in Europe and second best in NATO, across all 5 domains.
I too feel that we have a marginal ability to face down China, even alongside allies – but a CSG is a reasonable contribution during times of tension or when deterrence nees to be stepped up.
Our home defence efforts by the army and also GBAD are verging on the non-existent. I don’t think we have done a Military Home Defence (MHD) exercise since Ex Brave Defender in the mid-80s – a follow on exercise for 1989 was cancelled as the Soviet Union imploded. Army units are spread unevenly and often thinly. Across West and East Sussex, there is only one regular army unit – a GBAD RA regiment and of course its assets are assigned to the defence of the deployable Field Army not the adjoining counties. Perhaps MoD should formally declare most or some of the Army Reserve as being primarily for MHD but switchable to expeditionary deployment ie dual roled.
“Global Britain”, don’t make me laugh. The Royal Navy has no LHD, T45, or last I heard, the QE was sailing without a Royal Navy escort.
Global Britain isn’t just about our Armed Force’s. QE has 1 T45, and 1 T23 with another T23 joining the group. Or put another way. One of the most capable integrated air defence systems that can put to sea outside of the US Navy
none of that is true apart from not having a LHD…but then it prefers LPDs which it has 2 of.
the QE is sailing around with 2 RN escorts..a T45 and a type 23….it’s also a deployment close to home. With 5th generation aircraft…not sure how many on other navy’s you think can do that…but the fact is you can count them on one hand and still have fingers free.
👍
It’s about time everyone realised RN can’t do it alone. But it isn’t alone. Who cares what the task force is made up of. You win or you lose. There is more in this game than the UK.
Even the dimmest politician should be aware of the fact that nearly 80 percent of the U.k’ trade comes and goes by sea especially as a island the importance of maintaining the control of the seas around the island should be enough to reinforce the importance of the fleet. In truth the navy should be double the size att it is.
I can’t see the royal marines needing to storm any beaches in the next ten years,so, the furore about the Albion’s going, is not the disaster people are making it to be.
Well if you can’t see it, Andy, it can’t possibly happen. Just like nobody could foresee anything in 1981, so gapping capability was okay then too. Luckily Albion isn’t going,
You need a local Britain that focuses on its own industry before having a global one
Agree 👍
Global investments bring in income in foreign currency, $ etc.
We don’t produce much local products wanted by th global markets.
Yes, some exceptions, e.g. JCB’s
We export a lot of services: in fact, as of this year, we are the world’s leading exporter of services.
Sorry, to qualify, circa 2023, we are the world’s leading exporter of Financial Services, we are 2nd in the world for exporting Services overall, behind the US.
Yes, a good job we do export services, otherwise the balance of payments will be in even more critical situation.
We actually manufacture more per capita than China, 8th in the world overall.
The problem is the reality outside UKDJ and some other places we like.
British people do not want to invest into a Global Britain or compete with Chinese Navy.
Even if they wanted UK like all Western world are a politician, bureaucrat and lawyer dream so doing stuff is not easy. The do it, tinkering of XIX Century is long gone.
With current resources the only solution is piracy and very damaging punitive raids against the enemy. That means very long range missiles and submarines – until technology makes water is transparent.
Global Britain? What about local Britain? Put things at home at the top of the agend, we’re not going to be storming any beaches in the foreseeable future, so all the furore about the Albion’s should be put in their proper context losin both of them would be a great shame, but if they were replaced on a one for one basis with a T26. I’d accept that.
Global investments bring in income in foreign currency, $ etc! Pre-WW2 Britain had a considerable nest egg of global investments built up.
Post WW2 most had to be liquidated!
This does relate to Britain’s global commitment and its show the dangers and need to back up “global Britain” with hard power. It now turns out the technical fault that causes a missile to fall off a Russian fighter next to a river joint was infact not true ( and I think there is a real problem in the fact the government lied to the British people about that ).
The Russian Pilot actual thought he had been given permission to attack the river joint and did in actual fire at a RAF plane with a missile…that missed, so probably shows how effective the jamming was..he then fired a second missile which failed ignite…but effectively the Russian military has fired on British forces in international skys..due to what everyone has accepted was Miss communication. But and this is clear we were potentially one miss away from a potential escalation to war with Russia…and to prevent that the British government lied to the British people ( justified or not that’s a bad place to be).
So if we are going to be global we better be able to hold up against either accidental or purposeful aggression against our armed forces…..sending out rivet joint close to a war zone that involved a military that was known to be random and not well controlled without an adequate escort ( or in fact any escort ) nearly causes our people to be killed….not all militaries are western militaries and will react in unexpected and unpredictable ways.
As always, good post.
A principle objective of UK policy on Ukraine is simply communicating that the UK resolutely opposes Russia in Ukraine.
I do not believe that the Government actually believes that this will come to a shooting war with NATO. The evidence for that is that the UK is actually doing absolutely nothing to prepare for such a conflict. If the UK Govt actually believed that war with Russia was possible, it would be putting money into defence on an emergency basis … and it would be trying to attract qualified personnel to the colours irrespective of any other consideration.
But they are doing none of that which suggests that they view the threat posed by Russia to NATO as actually quite low. And that actually seems to reflect the real situation as Russian capabilities have been exposed as extremely weak in this conflict.
Not all threats are existential. The high inflation rate in this country has largely been driven by the war in Ukraine, like it has been in other NATO countries. The financial threat has already become a reality. Or doesn’t that count?
Then what about the threat to our democratic elections by Russian social media manipulators. We are stuck in our little social media bubbles and don’t even see the worst of it, which doesn’t get aimed at people on this forum. Afterwards the lies and the adverts disappear like they did after Brexit and the effects become impossible to analyse. A threat? Maybe. Maybe not.
As long as we have no will to act, Putin doesn’t need strong forces. He can try all sorts of things, poison our citizens, shoot at our planes, manipulate our media, invade friendly countries, safely knowing that we’ll do nothing or will give up before he does. He eats away at our international credibility and diminishes us over time. I consider that a threat.
The asymmetric threat is not one that requires aircraft carriers, or amphibious ships, or fighter aircraft or tanks. That is the calculation that the UK government has made.
I don’t think it is a wise decision since once you get rid of defence capabilities, it takes decades to re-acquire them. But salami slice cuts are the norm for governments of both political stripes and politicians are gambling, first, that there is no serious conventional military threat and second they are calculating that there are few votes in defence spending.
The threat from Argentina was thought very low until they invaded the Falklands. Russia & China have been actively attacking the UK & our interests for decades while our politicians have courted & accepted their investment & donations. They way they’ve treated their own people, & neighbours should be a wake up call, not a means for our wilfull naivety & complacency. 9/11 woke us up to the threat of Islamic extreme terrorism; what will it take to rouse us to oppose the advance of authoratarianism, championed buy Russia, China & even the Saudis?
I would pay to watch the panic and sheer panic in Whitehall 2 were told that Charlie mark 3 decided he’d like to review the fleet!!!!
Baring a few forward deployed OPV’s, arguably worse off than a decade ago. Still no sign of LSG(S) happening, whilst I’m not confident that the T31’s will be forwarded deployed expected perhaps to Bahrain. They are too badly needed closer to home as the number of operational T23’s collapses. Unfortunately carrier strike has distorted the fleet, it was obvious by the early 2010’s the UK would lack the aircraft, helicopters, escorts, support ships and trained personnel to operate two carrier groups through most of the 2020’s. A massive investment effort may have solved the problem, but off course – as everyone reading this board knows – the exact the opposite happened, orders were cut and delayed, ships paid-off without replacements, manpower reduced annually, and important equipment begged and borrowed from the USN/USMC. Result – one “operational” carrier with no aircraft or escorts, and a headlining UK Carrier Strike with one-third of an air group, c.2 RN escorts, and no solid support ship. I’ve long reluctantly been of the view that the sensible option was to rotate the two carriers, one in service and the other in reserve/refit. The money and crew thus saved could boost the rest of the service fleet, e.g. I doubt if it’s a coincidence that the LPD role was gapped at the same time as the complement of PWLS was brought back to full strength. When QNLZ goes in to “refit” next year, it will be interesting see how long this lasts, I wouldn’t be surprised if it lasts 3+ years, by which time PWLS will be in need of a major “refit”.
If PoW had been put into reserve, QE would of been unable to provide for the CSG23 exercise, because she would now had to provide for trials of further F-35b capabilites first and drone trials. So I would include trials of carrier capabilites as a sort of reserve status!
There’s nothing a river can do that echo couldn’t. Retiring those two ships is a disgrace
Firstly I’d like to apologise to George and Defense Geek for posting a link to another “defence orientated site”, but I am doing so just to emphasise the stark reality of the last sentence of your excellent article.
To all of you who are aware of the vital importance of logistical support to the proper functioning of a Blue Water Navy, you will understand why I highlight this link.
https://www.navylookout.com/photo-essay-rfa-proteus-puts-to-sea-for-the-first-time-since-conversion/
Now take a look at what is in dock behind RFA Proteus as she leaves CL today.
Precisely a third of the RFA, 2 Tidesprings and Fort Victoria.
I’d love to know if anyone knows what is down in dock at Falmouth, Plymouth today and how it adds up. Global GB ? Really ?
I’m afraid I’m with Peter S on this. The slogan “Global Britain” is just that, a slogan with no substance.
Without either diplomatic or economic capability, Britain is now a very marginal player outside its support to Ukraine.
Britain is not included in India’s proposal for an alternative to Belt and Road, it’s not in the EU, it’s major proximate power bloc, it has neutered its ability to project power through aid, and its poor economic performance has curtailed its ability to maintain its conventional forces.
True, it can still retain a sizable military but without the other, essential, aspects of influence at its disposal, it’s really not a global.power.
I think there’s some substance, particularly in trade. For example, joining the CPTPP is a Global Britain initiative. It’s not enough. We need to do more in foreign policy, aid and defence to create a consolidated and stable project.
Forget about Global Britain or WW3. This is serious! Have a gander at this….
‘In Niger, as I speak to you, we have an ambassador and diplomatic members who are literally taken hostage at the French embassy,” Macron said during a trip to Burgundy. “They are preventing the delivery of food. He’s eating army rations,” Macron added.’
Army food! Oh the poor dear 😱 😁
Yes I smirked at that. So he’s eating healthily, just not the haut quisine he’s used to. But if they attack your ambassador, it is an act of war.
Warfare is now highly asymmetric, and this means being able to project power along different axes simultaneously. Diplomatic power through memberships of trade and political associations and buiding trust with key partners, cultural power through the British Council and NGOs, moral power through membership of the UN and Council of Europe, technological power through science and engineering programmes.
But (leaving political slogans aside) our global reach has now reached its lowest ebb ever, and work is needed not only to rebuld these capabilities but crucially to integrate them into a coherent policy that works in the event of pan-regional or simultaneous conflicts, not limited to supporting Ukraine and contributing to a carrier group in the South China Sea. China has long since seen this in its Belt and Road Initiative, India sees it in its India-EU initiative backed by the US. We have no equivalent mindset.
We tend to think ‘tech’ as the solution, but if used as a one trick pony it can only get you part way at best. When programmes catastrophically overrun, as was the case with the F35 the coffers can quickly be depleted. Only 70 airframes for what it is now, £70Bn? – what was the opportunity cost in ships, armour, materiel, men, drones, cyber and other aircraft?. True, we need leading edge tech, but major project thinking can eclipse thinking can be a handicap. The UK needs a far more comprehensive, forward thinking strategy not based solely around hardware.
That Mistral looks nice…
Yes I’d like to see a couple of LPDH replace our Albions in time. We’d be better off expanding the Marines rather than cutting them & risking our future amphibious capabilities. They are key to supporting allies where we need to intervene.
Nice and Cheap. So they have three like this…
No
Global Britain was delusional. We should be global in outlook as a permanent member of the UN security council, the wealth we produce(but rarely trickles downward at all) & with global economic interests. But that means carrying a bigger stick, not recklessly shrinking our armed forces to near token levels with regular capability gaps. We have the wealth to support services & forces but choose instead to let too much of it disappear offshore where it does the UK little good.
The CSG project is encouraging but must be matched with a fleet of the size to support them while maintaining the capability to cover all existing commitments. We won’t be close to even adequate for at leasst a decade. The RAF & Army are in a perilous state, far too small.
Don’t forget BJ is a serial liar, which alone should’ve disqualified him from any public office.
“Global Britain was delusional.”
Not at all! We need to be in business globally, in order to finance the capabilities, you say we need to have.
What I meant was that with such a tiny armed forces, it is delusional. We need sufficient muscle to be credible. Economically & diplomatically we are/should be global.
The problem with the UK is not wealth we have here its our political classes complete inabilty to generate any more wealth. I’ve see nothing from Labour or the Tories that will improve quality of life for the population long term, more likely we’ll end a lot poorer in future because of them both. Labour and Tory solution is redistribute existing wealth, well guess what with a negative balance of payments that means that wealth leaves the country over time as those who receive it buy iphones, BMWs, Samsung TVs etc. If we’re going to redistribute current wealth and not create more then we need to ensure its going to stay in the UK. You should be far more worried about addressing the import export imbalance tbh, than someone buying a villa in Bermuda.
Indeed it is redistribution, but I don’t see that either Tories or labour have done that in recent times, rather the draining awayof wealth up to the top,richest, has proceeded unchecked. The proponents of the richest say the top 1% pay 70% of all taxes, but the reality is that proportionately they’ve never paid less, so there’s less in the public purse, everyone else pays more & yet services etc are run down to unsustainable levels as society crumbles. All in preperation of privatising what remains in public ownership so the rich can make even more out of it & the rest of us are locked into 2nd rate crumbling services.
Bermuda is a wonderful place, I’ve found memories of the run ashore we had there in 1978 when I got to go there.
So basically, the PLAN will be us back in 1960
More like it, pre-WW2!
Why do some not understand that our country has always, for centuries, been ‘Global Britain’ even without this new politician’s label and that it is primarily about having political influence across the globe and especially in the three areas mentioned – North America, Europe and its environs and the Asia-Pacific region.
It is not solely about having huge armed forces, but Global Britain does include having forces that are globally deployable and meaningful.
That said our armed forces do need expanding, modernising and for capabillity gaps to be closed out, not merely identified. We need to debate what size our armed forces should be and what capability they should have for Global Britain to be even more credible and for financial reality to play a part in that debate.
Spot on. It is about diplomacy and trade, but moaners will seize on it as a means to cririsise Boris Johnson. He is open to plenty of criticism, but the Global Britain phrase isn’t one of them.
RFA Lyme Bay (flag) and RFA Argus, with a ‘strike company’ from 40 Commando RM, are finally about to forward deploy to Duqm in Oman as LRG(S). Looks like a couple of Merlin Mk4s will be embarked. No accompanying escort, although I assume HMS Lancaster will occasionally join them in the region. It’s unclear how long they will be out there – speculation is that Argus will stay three years but Lyme Bay seems to valuable and badly needed for other tasking to spare more than 6-9 months.
Each LRG is planned to have 2 amphibious vessels, so that Bay may well remain.
LRG (N) will comprise another Bay, and the LPD, when it finally becomes available.
I do not claim to know what others think on this site. However, I for one, am sick and tired of the BS from within government, and the ‘defence community’.
The UK can no longer fight a ‘conventional war’, against a ‘conventional enemy’ on our own doorstep, let alone the far side of the world!
The sooner all concerned admit to that sad, horrible reality, the better. We have long ceased to be a global power, politically or militarily. To think otherwise, is little more than wishful thinking. That is not to say that other countries do not admire, and respect the UK. On the contrary, there are plenty of examples out there where others may turn to us for our advice militarily.
Recent months have seen the government come out with several ‘wheezes’, aimed at assuring the ‘masses’, that Britain has the kit, the forces and the ‘lethality’, to knock the ***** out of allcomers.
The Rangers, enough to get anyone with an IQ less than 30 get all excited… a pathetic ruse.
The increased ‘lethality’ of the Royal Marines… a pathetic ruse.
Both Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers at sea at the same time… a pathetic ruse.
River class vessels in the middle, far, and distant east… a pathetic ruse.
It goes on and on and is, well to me anyway, boring, insulting and frankly quite offensive. Global Britain… where are we in 2023. We are not global, and have not been for a long time now. 😢
Tom, why so gloomy? We do of course fight with allies, so in what sense could we not fight a war close to our shores or very distant? What force elements are we missing that we could not put a force package together?
Why am I gloomy? Didn’t you read my post? The statements made were factual, not dreamt up… unfortunately.
“We do of course fight with allies”… that dangerously simplistic mindset has allowed the government to hack an slash the Army, to its current pathetic level.
If a major conflict broke out as intense as the one between Ukraine and Russia, the British army would have trouble lasting more than a month.
I did read your post and it reflects your opinions rather than list factual statements.
You say: “The UK can no longer fight a ‘conventional war’, against a ‘conventional enemy’ on our own doorstep, let alone the far side of the world!”…but this needs to be quantified:
1 Obviously we could not take on one of the (potentially) hostile states (Russia, Iran, North Korea, China) on our own – but that would never happen – it would be an Alliance/Coalition mission (fighting with Allies) if it ever happened. We have hardly ever fought a significant conflict alone.
2 Could we fight a lesser enemy such as we did in the two Gulf Wars? – yes, within an alliance, as in 1990/91 and 2003, deploying a division and an EAF.
3 Could we fight Argentina’s armed forces in the Falklands again without allied personnel alongside – yes, we could.
So exactly, what type of conventional war could we not do? We just can’t do them at the scale we once did – and have less chance of successfully engaging in two simultaneous conflicts.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe our armed forces are too small given Britain’s standing and ambition. Our Navy should have another carrier and/or LPH, far more attack subs even if it is a SSN/SSK mix and around 25 escorts at least. Our army should be over 100,000 and have at least 200 tanks, modern tracked IFVs and much more artillery.
But it is extreme to say that we could not fight a conventional war, either close to home or distant. I also don’t think the army has been cut because we fight with allies and so don’t need a larger army – it has been cut to save money to spend on social programmes – it is a very easy target and voters don’t complain when cuts are made.
If the British Army were pitched into a Ukraine type war with similar numerical ratios with the enemy, then they would fight as well as the Ukrainians but with more experience and with better kit. The attrition would still be high. Stocks would not last long if gifted stocks had not been replenished. Ukraine has lasted 19 months – I would hope our guys last longer than 1 month.
Well said Graham.