Richard Drax, the Conservative MP for South Dorset, has called upon the UK Government to bolster its military capabilities in light of the global geopolitical turbulence.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Drax praised the UK’s armed forces but expressed concerns over their preparedness for potential conflicts with top-tier opponents.
Drax began his speech acknowledging the importance of defending the UK. He said, “Bearing in mind that the defence of our island must be any Government’s top priority, these debates are important, not least when we face a world that is as unstable as it has ever been in my lifetime.”
Discussing global military operations, he stated these are influenced by government priorities, financial capabilities, and obligations like those to NATO. He commended the current ministers for their efforts but was critical of the Treasury for what he perceives as insufficient funding for defence. He added, “To deter war, one needs to prepare and train for it, with sufficient mass to sustain a lengthy conflict.”
Highlighting the emerging threats from China and Russia, he opined, “Since the end of world war two, we have not faced a top-tier opponent, but that threat is very real today with both China and Russia raising the threshold.” He praised the US for gearing up for major conflict but did not sense the same urgency in the UK.
Drax then touched on historical perspectives, noting that the UK has traditionally been ill-prepared for major conflicts. He lamented the peace dividend that followed the end of the Cold War, saying that it led to a level of disarmament which leaves the UK struggling to find one fighting division when needed.
One of the critical points in his speech was the urgent need to reverse the decision to cut the British Army by 10,000 personnel.
Drax, who served in the armed forces for nine years, made it clear that maintaining adequate manpower is essential for the UK to respond to potential conflicts and fulfill its obligations as a global player. He stated, “To deter war, one needs to prepare and train for it, with sufficient mass to sustain a lengthy conflict. On that point alone, we must reverse the decision to cut the Army by 10,000.”
He further expressed his concern about the current state of the armed forces, asserting that they are “stretched to breaking point.” This remark highlights the strain on the military resources and personnel in the face of multiple international commitments and the emerging threats from top-tier opponents such as China and Russia.
The Conservative MP emphasised the necessity of maintaining a significant military presence worldwide, citing China as an example. He expressed concern over China’s expanding economic and military reach, and stated, “Too few politicians, regrettably, have understood the significance of a military presence around the world and the diplomatic and economic benefits that flow from it.”
Speaking about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Drax called it a wake-up call and commended European countries for increasing their defence budgets. He called for political leadership and sufficient funding to meet the rise in global responsibilities. He said, “If we are to play our part globally, along with our allies in most cases, we must fund our armed forces to allow them to do the job that we in this place send them to do.”
Drax finished his speech with an appeal for long-term investment in the armed forces to avoid the perils of short-termism and urged the Government to learn from history. He added, “It is the political will, the funding, and the sense of urgency that are the challenge if we are to take our global responsibilities seriously.”
It’s always nice to hear an MP, especially an informed one, speak up on important issues.
Now if only others would actually listen…
I fear it could be too late. If events unfold as threatened and Poland deploys troops over the border in support of the failing Ukraine counter offensive. NATO members will be left with a tough decision to make. In or out – stick or twist. Given our leading belligerent role thus far. We will have no option but to go all in.
People under 45-50, especially veterans. Should be working on their physical fitness as a priority. Oh how I wish I was 30 or 40 years younger.
Bugger!
I’m in my late 50’s, but I do have a background in certain aspects of military firearms, so I’ll form a local Home guard unit, I’ll be needing a staff car and driver as CO of course, a swagger stick and use of the church hall on Thursday evenings and weekends.
Now, who’s volunteering to guard the Novelty Emporium and who’s guarding the pier this evening chaps…
Ho ho ho. Don’t panic Mr Mainwaring.
Nicely put. All I can add is ” .. me sideways!”
Andy, we could be operators for one of those new fancy drones. Sat in a portacabin with plenty of coffee and custard creams.
I’m in a wheelchair some of the time myself and often wondered if a GPMG pintle mount can be fitted to it. I’d much rather go out that way than sat on a commode, fading away in a nursing home somewhere. Give me Valhalla.
Is there talk of Poland deploying? I know they have been Ukraine’s strongest ally but deploying troops would be a significant as step
Yes. Watch this from Preston Stewart, he has his ear to the ground in the intel community and has been correct so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUGyYZVQhh4
I can’t see it happening but if they did then I could see sunak following suit. A Falklands style PR win is about all that would save them at the next general election, considering the economy is stuffed and it seems almost certain that a housing crash is about to happen, that would make things worse.
Yes.
Is it actually failing? Do we know that for a fact?
Not yet Steve but despite NATO supplied equipment, this conflict is a numbers game. With the tactical advantage going to the defenders. Ukraine had something like 50,000 troops given 3 months training by western nations before the losses of the past few days. A maximum of three months training, including time to become acquainted with the new kit. If by some miracle they have mastered the equipment and the combined arms tactics for which it was designed. The Ukrainians who do not have aircover, face a numerically superior force, dug in behind prepared defences in depth. (Not to be confused with Aleksandr Dugin the Russian neo-fascist. You should read the drivel that man churns out.)
They faced numerically superior forces last year in Kharkiv, Lyman, Kherson etc and still trounced them, though.
Of course it will be more difficult now as the Russians know what Ukraine is capable of, but I don’t see this counterattack really failing.
Perhaps not achieving as much as people are expecting; it won’t end the war, but that’s still not failing.
Everyone was expecting a big fast push using maneuver warfare like we saw with their last counter offensive. Instead we are seeing small gains with heavy losses. It’s still too early to know either way but it seems Russia has at least partially got their act together, as they are even starting to use their air force again, which they have been mainly avoiding until now.
What we don’t know is how deep the russian defensives positions are. Will try crumble once Ukraine makes a breakthrough. We do know that Russia doesn’t appear to have any reserves as they have been unable to take back any land lost, so they might be over stretched
Over stretching the Russian defence is obviously an important Ukrainian aim. I imagine Ivan is worried about a repeat of the last Ukrainian assault, using western maneuver tactics and “thunder runs.” Therefore their defence appears to be well prepared, well manned and equipped everywhere. The local reserve seems to be held at the third defensive trenchline similar to WWI tactics.
Russia has had plenty time to build defences in depth. Also time to train their conscripts in how to fight that type of battle. It’s an easier task than learning manoeuvre warfare. They also possess efficient anti air weapons and have developed an effective layered defence system. With no shortage of munitions. It’s certainly going to be an interesting summer/autumn campaign. I’m still waiting for Putin to release his chemical weapons stocks.
This is why I don’t get the logic that Ukraine is acting, which means I’m probably missing something. Why announce months ahead of time that the offensive is coming allowing Russia to dig in and why wait to after Russia has taken their latest objective (can’t spell the city name) and so released forces for defense elsewhere. None of it makes sense.
Upto now Ukraine has acted as you would expect an organised military, keeping mission secrets, attacking where least expected etc. This offensive so far all seems highly predictable.
This war has an added facet to content with. The internet and social media. Also, both Ukrainian and Russian intelligence agencies have identical roots in the soviet era. I think a good rule of thumb is to believe nothing on face value and look for the maskirovka in everything.
Both sides will do and say anything to achieve their objectives. No sacrifice is too great and people are simply meat. Western sensibilities DO NOT apply.
Ho ho ho.
Ben Wallace IS the problem.
How do you reason that? He’s the best DefSec we’ve had in decades.
The biggest problem is the 2% floor, never fit for purpose and now a joke, the second biggest is Treasury spending rules, especially the RDEL-aversion that has led to continuous personnel cuts, and the third is specification-driven purchasing in major projects.
I’d add that the slowness of the shift away from the third issue is symptomatic of the sclerotic nature of the MOD, who have learned to spell “agile” but not to be it.
2% is relevant to a point, but we can spend 2% on painting curb stones in barracks and bases if we wanted to.
One other problem we have is we don’t create defence products so the entire cost of development and manufacture of bespoke defence equipment is financed by the MoD.
If you have the budget, you can spend it well or badly, but if you don’t have it you can’t spend it at all. Cutting it until Defence can spend it well (as the Treasury have talked about) leads to a permanent cut. “Well” will always be redefined in hindsight.
More than that, it’s easy to cut and very difficult to grow budget. The fast-to-take peace dividend doesn’t naturally revert as the threat level rises again. We need to use the current crisis to increase the budget as we won’t have time when the next, possibly far more serious, crisis arises.
I’m not saying we couldn’t spend the money better, I’m not blind, but we can’t let the argument that it could be spent better deter us from talking about 3%. We would have to spend the current budget twice as well to reach the same effect and that’s simply not possible.
I agree with a comment that you made further down, that it’s not a zero-sum game. Money added to the defence budget in part flows back to the Treasury through taxes and stimulates the economy. I believe there are projects that will pay for themselves, not just through supply chain taxation, but through subsequent exports. Yet the Treasury only counts the cost. How much of the extra percent of GDP could we make self-financing if that was a goal?
The problem is the government departments consider themselves cost centres so no need to participate in increasing GDP. There would really need to be a complete charge in midset for them to actually contribute rather than consume.
Don’t take my comment about 2% wrong, the ideal scenario is 3% spent on the right things.
Increasing GDP? The economy is basically stagnant, and yet costs are going through the roof with inflation. Realistically further cuts are going to be needed, as 10% inflation is seriously hitting buying power
The question is why is it stagnant. The world economy is not shrinking so we’re not secure any of the growth.
The whole worlds economy is shrinking due to inflation. Raw numbers and there is some marginal growth, but when adjusted for inflation all counties are declining pretty significantly. We are one of the worst but it’s happening to most major countries.
What’s inflation rates in Asia?
I have to agree with you Jon, say what we might about one government or another, Ben Wallace has BY FAR shown the most sincere and genuine interest in trying to improve things (within the scope that he can).
Agree
Fully agreed with Ben Wallace. No chance that the next government will have someone as focused, chances are they will just be only interested in their own progression, which will come from cost cutting and capability cuts.
I honestly believe all the early support for Ukraine came from Wallace alone. It was very odd that Boris didn’t start getting his PR photos in until weeks after the war had started. If he was behind it, you would have seen him on a a400m steps with a nlaw over this shoulder, as his focus was always team Boris. That didn’t start until much later when it was clear Ukraine had a chance.
I want this government out yesterday, they are destroying this country and appear to have no plans to deal with the inflation etc, but if labour could keep Wallace I think that would be a plus. Of course won’t happen but can dream.
Cobblers. Man is a peacock.
They’re only half way learning spelling Jon. The destination is “Fragile” armed forces.
Cobblers. Tic toc soldier who bigs up his tic tocking.
Cut the Army, surface Fleet and airforce and know towed to Bluffer sinking the knife in.
The mess Webley would be too good for Wallace. Disgrace of a man.
Overall BW is very good but why has he cut army manpower yet again. Where is the justification? Why has it not been reversed given Europe is having its most ferocious State vs State war for 80 years. What happened about revising the numbers of CR3s in light of the war?
He’s not the problem. BW is trying his best under the strained public finances after years of economic mismanagement by his own Tory government, the public finances are drained.
It is Hunt and Sunak that are the ultimate cause of inactivity to reverse defence cuts and prepare for what everyone foresees is coming an inevitable conflict with President Xi’s China and the axis of evil with Mad Vlad the impaler’s Russia.
HMG should be reversing cuts to the army, ordering more equipment and smart ammunition across the board, putting resilience and battlefield dominance as the number 1 priority- so upgrade all armoured vehicles with Trophy APS, all C2s to C3 standard, order more Apache, More Land ceptor units, army back up to 90,000 strong. Another batch of typhoon whilst we are waiting for Tempest, further order for another 26 F35Bs funded and placed, but only when UK munitions are able to be deployed on the type.
AWACs order back upto 5 or better yet 7 aircraft with a further 5-7 Poseidon MPAs and cancel the retirement without replacement of the Hercules fleet assigned to special forces operations.
For the RN another batch of type 31s and a further 2-4 type 26s whilst awaiting type 83 programme commencing. In addition order the type 32 and the required unmanned systems being touted as replacements for the entirety of our MCM fleet.
Just takes political will and waking up to the dangerous situation the world is in now.
We spent too much in Covid relief, like underwriting the housing market, it should of been allowed to fall.
Not really. Yes we gave billions to businesses that didn’t need it or were setup fraudulently to collect the money as the government was incompetent, but it went to the national debt. That means it can be paid off over many decades, it’s not causing any of the current issues. National finances dont work like house hold debt.
Ben Wallace has said repeatedly we aren’t ready for a war and need billions injected across the armed forces, especially the army.
If the navy eventually has a surface fleet of 24 escorts then that is adequate possibly with an additional astute or 2. Far more than most nato members and if their vls are fully armed with modern weapons then that would be ideal. I’d say the air force needs minimum 180 jet fighters if not 200. I think all this would’ve or could be possible if funds are spent competently.
We may see 180 fighters if 107 Typhoons are still in service by the time 74 F35 have been delivered in the early 2030’s.
24 frigates and destroyers is also possible if T32 stays within planning assumptions and is then funded, but again with the clapped out T23’s leaving service we won’t see any uplift until the 2030’s.
An uplift in SSN’s is of course possible but it would take money and time to grow the manpower pool as well as actually build additional boats.
It’s very easy to underinvest and scrap capabilities but very hard to regenerate them!
I do think the UK military will be better placed during the 2030’s. Last decade too many cuts, this decade trying to reorganise and bring in new equipment – Next decade, hopefully things will be much better ( Long process) I think if the UK ends up with 22-24 escorts with more air defence missiles, plus more F35’s and new armoured vehicles and artillery for the Army – The UK military will be about the right balance. Still a much smaller military than we had a few years back, but with more teeth to it than we currently have.
Adding to my above comments.. The importance of NATO over the coming years and the increase in capabilities promised from other European nations.
The British military will 100% be better placed in the 2030s than it is now.
Navy
T45- NSM, CAMM, BMD, PIP
T31- MK41, all in service
T26- all in service
QEC- drones, maybe cats
Dragonfire in service
All Astute in service
All FSSS in service
FC/ASW in service
Army
Lots of old vehicles in service will be replaced. Ajax, Boxer, CR3, MFP. Hopefully MRVP will be sorted by then.
All 71 MLRS in service
Even if kept on the same trajectory the army will have a disappointing structure, but at least it’ll be a disappointing structure with new vehicles.
New missiles- CCAAW, MCCO, LPS.
RAF
Spear 3 and Meteor on F35.
At least 47 in service depending on when the second batch is ordered up to 74.
FC/ASW in service
All MQ9B in service
NMH maybe in service
E7 in service
Tempest nearing service
T2 Typhoon upgraded?
Aeralis trainer in service
The Armed Forces are in a rough patch because due to neglect, everything needs replacing at once.
The Navy’s future is looking really good.
The Army needs a restructuring but has the right assets.
RAF is just numbers. They need more of everything.
Hi Louis.. yes, all good points you make. Thank you for the reply. Have a good afternoon.
👍
The issue is we are playing catch-up for decades are parsimony on defence capital spending
– firstly to pay for unsustainable force sizes that if cut earlier would have been cut less; and
– secondly to pay for Blair’s various wars.
Given that we have been, close to continuously, at war for two decades it isn’t very surprising.
How old are you?
What a load of tosh..
Throw away glib statements… the Army needs restructuring – really? How? With what?
XYZ in service… by…
You’re either a Tory puppet or a con puppet, trotting out shoite.
Heads up, this isn’t the Daily Fail.
The irony of you suggesting I’m a child before resorting to personal insults is not lost on me.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone on this site who thinks that Future Soldier is the best structure the army could have with the manpower available. For starters to rerole half of the LI battalions in 4x to provide regular CS and CSS support for the brigade.
You do not have to be a Tory to see that the Armed Forces will be in a better place ten years from now. I did not mention any political party so it is quite strange that you have brought up the Tories here.
Labour has been worse than the Tories for cuts to the Armed Forces in any case.
Bomber command is such a tempting suggestion 😩.
Infrastructure is already here for a bomber station, if only money would allow it.
…’smaller but better’. I heard that mantra from politicians decades ago.
107 typhoons are not in service now let alone 7 years from now
A handful of tranche 1’s are still in service on QRA in the UK and Falklands so combined with the tranche 2/3’s there’s currently something like 130 Typhoon’s in the RAF inventory of which the 107 2/3’s will be kept on past the tranche 1’s retirement in 2025.
Of course only a certain amount will actually be active in squadron service at any one time with the rest in reserve or going through maintenance/upgrade cycles, but that’s the same with every aircraft fleet the world over!
Oh dear still wrong on yet another subject! Never mind why don’t you reapply for your US green-card again? Give you something to do.
It begs the question…what kinds of armed operation are we ready for that falls short of being ‘a war’?
At the moment very little, only with NATO would we stand a chance. I’d imagine we could defend against a small military in worse shape than ours but at the moment it’s unlikely that that’s the sort of adversary we’d be up against. Russia can still do a lot of damage even on its knees. We must re-arm at any cost and reestablish a mass production capability for defence (replenish our own stocks and sell to allies who also are running low and have less manufacturing capability). Even production of something as simple as 5.56mm needs ramping up as we’ve seen in ukraine. Which indicates what the army was saying years ago (we would run out of bullets in 2 weeks) was completely true. Obviously I know this is harder to accomplish than it sounds, but we have always found a way.
Probably 95% of our operational deployments have been in concert with allies be they NATO, UK or US-led ‘coalitions of the willing’.
However, the British-specific operations have been Northern Ireland (Op Banner, The Falklands Conflict (Op Corporate), Sierra Leone (Op Palliser & Op Barras) and various SAS operations including Iranian Embassy siege (Op Nimrod)
Can’t think of any more in the last 30 or so years but there are probably some, probably minor.
The most key questions are:
If we can do the above, then we have met a minimum bench mark. If we could do more, then we are still a good Alliance partner up to a certain level of commitment.
Just to point out that the ‘needs’ of the UK are different to most other European NATO countries. We need a relatively bigger Navy; they need a relatively bigger army. Both need bigger Air Forces! Having said that, our army is too small and needs more bodies… the current and projected forces are insufficient. As for the Navy, nice to see ships being upgraded. However, with current concerns about undersea cables, etc, I would like to see some kind of dedicated and intergrated ‘Coastal Command’ develop.
Rob,
Strangely your idea of an integrated Coastal Command struck a chord with me. A joint force that protect our coasts (and hinterland behind, and airspace above although RAF QRA has that covered?) and out to distance would be more than a nod to Military Home Defence (MHD). Worth developing the idea as MHD has fizzled out, and it shouldn’t have. This is about defence of the homeland and it is important.
Stretched is an understatement. Particularly if Poland sends troops across the border to support the Kiev forces. If that happens, we will be obliged to mobilise and do the same. Even if other NATO members fail to live up to their obligations as allies.
I was too young to remember the Cuban missile crisis, which must have had real pucker factor for the troops at the time. However, in my experience the world has never been this close to WWIII.
I’ve not see anything in regards this puported Polish decision but even if they did why would we (or NATO) be obliged to mobilise and do the same.
Surely that decision by them -IF Taken- would have nothing to do with article 5 whatsoever?
Watch this from Preston Stewart, he has his ear to the ground in the intel community and has been correct so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUGyYZVQhh4
Considering we have been so enthusiastic to arm Ukraine and have said we are willing to do whatever it takes. It would be a huge loss of face if we failed to live up to our own hype.
There’s been a lot of talk coming out of Poland itself, mostly rhetoric. However, the Defence Minister did say that Poland might send in troops to set up a humanitarian protection zone in the West of Ukraine. Which would include troops on the ground but also Polish aircraft patrolling the skies. This would be a Polish led decision and not a NATO one. There has also been a lot of chatter on Polish forums about sending troops to relieve Ukrainian forces guarding the border with Belarus. Thereby allowing them to be sent south/east. Poland has a lot of bad history with Russia, they have a lot to settle.
We would only be obliged to help if Russia then attacked Polish soil. I don’t think attacking Polish troops on Ukrainain solid would trigger a NATO response. So it the ball would be in Russia court. Its not likely to happen.
If a conflict erupted we would stick to what we would do best, using world class assets like Astutes, T45, Eurofighter and F35 to support other NATO allies ground forces and hamper enemy operate at sea and in the air.
There is very little else we could do given the imbalance of our forces. Turkey has closed the Black Sea and rotary/fixed wing assets have a very short life expectancy over Ukraine.
Having vociferously championed Ukraine and often set the precedent with many classes of weapon. Backing out at the final hurdle would be very embarrassing. Don’t you think.
Not forgetting our track record of declaring war in support of Poland after Germany and the USSR invaded. Only to leave the Poles occupied and under Russian control when Germany was defeated in 1945. Bearing that in mind. I’d argue we had a moral obligation to send ground forces.
I agree we did leave Poland to the USSR after 1945 -However I’m not sure what we could have been reasonably expected to at the juncture but maybe not sending Poles back woud have been the right response.
I don’t however agree we have any moral obligation to jumo in boots first if Poland decide to join in.
Just to clarfy I hope they don’t as it may indeed by the catalyst to a much wider conflict,,,and lets be honest we are in no position to get involved en masse
Wrong. Unless there is an attack on Poland article 5 is irrelevant. Russians attacking Polish troops in a third country where Poland has been the party to commit troops there would not qualify.
I never mentioned article 5. I’m saying if Poland decides to deploy it’s armed forces in support of Kiev. As one of the most enthusiastic antagonists of Russia and suppliers of the Ukrainians. Never hesitating to escalate with advanced weaponry. We would be morally obliged to follow through. Not back out like cowards when the going gets tough.
The problem with Johnson and Sunak loudly talking the talk in the worlds media. When the time comes to walk the walk. We have left ourselves only one way out.
I cant see Poland going in to Ukraine, they alone wont deliver the required change to the battlefield to ensure victory. Russia would simply swing around, mass mobilise and take on Poland in Ukraine and possibly invade Poland through the gap between Belorusk , latvia and the Kalingrad enclave. Poland’s involvement in the Ukraine war would simply give justification to Russia to attack Poland and the Baltic states then dragging the rest of NATO into the war.
Perhaps that is what Poland would want but I think it is an extremely high-risk escalation with potential of nuclear conflict massively increased.
I agree they shouldn’t send their troops into Ukraine because of the real risk of war. But I disagreed with the previous decision to send weapons and military aid. for the same reason. When the weapons did not have the desired outcome, some NATO members would want to back that up with combat troops.
I’m not too young to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis (in college of draft age) and what is going on in Ukraine isn’t one-third of the threat that WWIII would result. Americans expected nuclear war any hour. US forces were poised to invade Cuba, bomb Soviet bases, and the US Navy had imposed a naval blockade of Cuba with a confrontation with a Soviet submarine or warship entirely possible. The US was on tinder hooks. The Ukraine crisis is nothing compared to the Cuban Missile crisis.
Cheers Daniel, I was preteen at the time. My father was a SNCO in the reserves following his National Service and retained regular army stint. He told me years later, how he reported to his barracks and started working on the vehicles. The talk at the time and for many years afterwards, had a profound impact on me. People here in GB were scared too. You could say it was my first lesson in what it really means to serve one’s country.
Since then I can honestly say, this is the closest I’ve ever felt to WWIII. I spent the peak years of my life training to fight the Red Army in Europe. Now my sons could be the ones to do it.
Where has this Polish idea come from? Is there any reality in it?
It came from the former Sec Gen of NATO, expressing his concerns about some members wanting to do more than supply kit. The speech is online somewhere. I can’t imagine he said that for giggles or to fool the Russians.
Thanks. I’ve found it now. Pure speculation on his part. Rather dangerous to do so in today’s world.
Good to hear an MP speaking out ,it is Absolutely insane to cut 10.000 troops specially with what’s going on in the world today .The government most put more into defence spending .Other nations seem to doing more it’s about time out government wake up⏰ .Yes Russia,China are on the cards but do we really know we’re the next fight is coming from ? Who would of thought the UK battling Argentina in 1982 Falklands conflict.IT’s all we’ll and good saying fight with our Allies ,but if it’s nothing to with NATO and it’s a British problem would really see a French frigate in harm’s way or USN Destroyer or any other NATO members wanting to lose platforms. ?
We are not cutting 10,000 troops.🙄
But yes, defence needs some TLC for a change.
I hope your right ,but let’s wait and see 🙄💰
The army’s at around 76,000 now, the cut is practically all the way through.
Quite mate, the never ending year on year contraction of the Army through retention issues is pushing closer and closer to 72,000 anyway…
I wonder where the figures will eventually settle, 65,000 perhaps, maybe even lower….
It will take a serious look at persuading more folks to serve longer ( tax free bonus system of some sort/pay increases / pension improvement/flexible engagement etc) changes before you can turn that ship around…
I know a few on AR permanent secondment, it’s an underutilised tool as a mechanism to retain certain personnel…
Phil Hammond wanted the army cut to 50,000 when he was Chancellor (and he had been Defence Sec. so should have known better!). Some MPs still remember the figure, though.
Many reasons why army is under-strength.
A big one is lack of active service since we pulled out of Iraq in May 2011 and Afghanistan in Dec 2014.
Also very poor recruiting activity by Capita.
I see why you say we are not cutting 10,000 troops but FS is predicated on a 73,000 regular army. You correctly criticise FS Orbats – it would be a heck of a lot better if written around an 83,000 strong army!
We need to make a portion of defence spending work for us and create more GDP, it shouldn’t be a nil sum game. Numerous defence project could generate defence products or the technology have dual use in the commercial sector. Its one thing being obsessed with 2%, but 2% of shrinking economy is not good. 2% of growing economy is good, especially if you don’t added people when growing GDP.
I agree entirely, however as BAE makes most of our ‘stuff’, how much of the ‘product’, with regard to design etc, belongs to the UK government, and not the companies building it?
The BAe Hawk is great example large numbers sold, but almost every iterations development has had to be paid for by the customer. Whilst Boeing and Saab put there own money into the T7 Redhawk and will market it as a product. Nimrod MPA, selecting an airframe that was no longer produced meant if the project was completes we could have exported any more. These are just bad decisions it doesn’t matter if the ip is with the company or government. Like in the US, UK government would sign off any export deal any way.
Good article, but when it comes to MP’s, tories, Government… blah blah, waffle waffle, with regard to this dude in particular, it will go down as… well at least I tried.
This will amount to nothing. The destruction of the Armed Forces has been going on for so long, it will take some years to reverse.
Mate needs to check what party he’s a member of. 13 years of upfront and backdoor cuts to the military all whilst waving the flags and saying they’re strong on defence. It’s a load of bull.
Why do none of the defence cuts ever get a single line of justification?
If Government was going to close 20 schools or 10 hospitals then I am sure they would be asked to justify their decision.
Am I the only one who is starting to feel that we are re playing 1937 to 1938. Yet again we have government more inclined to save money now, making our forces weak, thus encouraging “nut case nations” to attack us, directly, Virtually or indirectly. A true false economy is saving on our defence costs as governments will have to pay 10 times over to get us out of the mess. In my view we need to increase our ground troop numbers by as much as 250,000 ( this is still small for a country with a population of 56 million plus). A bomber force capable of hitting targets at long distance is required, and a home guard and coastal command, and a UK air defence command (perhaps manned by a homeland force only of 100,000). The navy needs more submarines x 20, and aircraft carriers x2 with catapults, and the Airforce needs a specialist lift command. And we also need a dedicated Medical command which will cover all branches of our defence. And yes we also need an infrastructure to build weapons, develop weapons, supply the raw materials and fuel required to maintain all these things for the long term. That’s why we need a new law, to stop the cuts, to stop the penny pinching, and to stop the waste. The Chancellor, needs to be taken out of the loop completely. Our defence needs to be built into law, and 2 percent of GDP wont cut it.
We’re walking a tightrope with no safety net, in a gale! Stretched to breaking point in peacetime while insidious dictatorships are on the prowl. Our unpreparedness matched only by our complacency.
People are quite right to mention the madness of how Government depts budgets are viewed both by the senior politians and the tresuary. A trick that could be used is to look at the benefits of a whole carea miltary in terms of there ulitimate benfit to both society and the indervidual. Example take the military trades. It is of course quite correct and right that all traing is geared to the actual equipment in use in terms of in theatre maintainance etc etc along with how to use it. So take lets say a mechanic they are fully trained by the mod (HOPEFULLY TO A HIGH STANDARD) and have the benifit of a miltary can do attitude this is expencive, however a real benfit is the transferable skills to civillian life so should at least part of their training costs at least come from the dept of education? There are many other examples I could mention, to add to this the back office paperwork is simple (it may even exist) At the end of day traing/ education is of benifit to both the whole Country and the indervidual but the costs are borne by the MOD yet the skills can be used in civillian life which which are a minimum of 20 years maybe be as an averadge a lot longer.
It only takes a bit of imaginary thinking by HMG or the blob
I can confirm that my REME Vehicle Mechanics were trained to a high standard!
It is odd that in a period where most countries are having a long hard look at their miltiary and working out how to increase its effectivenes, the UK is cutting everything across the board
Yes, I find that inexplicable. With the Indo-Pacific tilt and AUKUS we need even more Defence capability in addition to our Euro-Atlantic Main Effort.
The best way to ensure peace is to have a sufficient & professional military to defend it. Showing weakness is an invitation to conflict.I doubt UK politicians are intellectually capable of understanding this.