The Defence Committee has issued a blunt warning that the UK may no longer meet its NATO Article 3 duty to maintain the ability to resist armed attack, arguing that both homeland defence and the protection of Overseas Territories have fallen behind the threat environment, according to the committee’s report.
The cross-party report says the UK remains a leading European military power, but its ability to sustain that position is under strain after years of under-investment, slow decision-making, and continued dependence on US capabilities. It urges the government to strengthen conventional and nuclear forces, improve interoperability, reform procurement and industry, and accelerate measures to defend the UK itself.
Committee chair Tan Dhesi MP said the UK must confront the scale of the threat. He argued that “we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand”, warning that Europe’s reliance on the US persists “despite clear, consistent signals from successive US presidents that European allies needed to step up”. He added that “we have repeatedly heard concerns about the UK’s ability to defend itself from attack” and called for a “wake-up call” within the Ministry of Defence.
A central concern is over-reliance on the United States. The report says the UK should assess where it might replace US capabilities if they were withdrawn and work to keep the alliance cohesive. It also calls for deeper cooperation with European partners, particularly France, and warns against UK industry being sidelined in EU defence initiatives.
The committee says the home front is the most serious vulnerability. It highlights delays to the Home Defence Programme and describes cross-government coordination as inadequate. It criticises the pace of Cabinet Office decision-making and recommends the creation of a Minister of Homeland Security to oversee readiness, resilience and public communication.
The report also backs proposals for a Defence Readiness Bill but warns that the government has yet to define its content or timelines. It says the public must be drawn more closely into national defence planning and questions the lack of progress on commitments to hold regular public briefings on sabotage, attacks and cyber threats.
Whoever is responsible for all this stuff that’s not happening maybe should get another job.
Errr….Starmer, Reeves, and the left of their party holding a gun to their head as they are, as far as I’m concerned, the enemy within happy to see this so that all welfare is prioritised over defending ourselves.
The sooner they clear off out of Labour to join Corbyn and the rest of his SWP buddies the better.
Blame also lies with the previous government of 14 years, and the 13 years of the version of the Labour party that preceded them.
Which is why I won’t vote for any of them!!!
A wise man once said something about this site becoming the UK Politics Journal…
👍
This is something people who actually give a f–k about the UK have known for quite a number of years, I have no doubt that the current government will form yet anouther committee to look into the matter!!!!
We hear you! 🇬🇧 deserves better than this.
See that Tank up there in the photo…..that is about 1% (on a good day) of our entire direct fire armoured capability right there…….
‘I can absolutely assure the Committee that we can provide a trained divisional headquarters and certified and assured brigades—16 Brigade, 7th Light Mech Brigade Combat Team, and an armoured brigade—but there will be capability gaps in our ability to get there and our ability to sustain it for time.’
Gen. Sir Patrick Sanders, H of C Defence Committee Oral evidence: Armed Forces Readiness, 7 November 2023
We are committed to providing NATO with a Corps HQ and two divisions, a formed Army Corps, albeit a small one.
How do we get there?
Drop net zero. There is your 2% uplift in defence spending right there.
Didn’t they some find extra tanks, now at 288? Wouldn’t it be now be sensible to increase the upgraded quantity of CR3s? Seize the opportunity. Its one thing amongst many.
There do seem to be some rumours out there about an extra 14 hulls for upgrade. Whether those are for this country or, potentially, an overseas customer, is not clear.
There may not be too many more CR2 hulls in a fit state for upgrade.
So the emphasis, bless ’em, appears to have been to reduce the number of Tanks in a Regiment so that we have more Tank Regiments….
Brilliant!
The thing about the number of hulls fit to upgrade is that the number is based on a specific set of cost figures..5.4 million pounds per tank. That is essentially an insanely low number., a modern new MBT comes in at about 20 million pounds per tank.. so to my mind yes by all means get the 148 tanks for 5.4 million as that is essentially a buy one get three tanks for free offer. But then they should be costing up the remaining 140 for conversion.. because anything less that 15 million a tank is still a profound bargain… because every one of those hulls can be converted just not for the 5.4 million..but 5.4 million is bonkers cheap.
So say the second tranche cost 10 million each on average a pop that’s 1.4 billion added to the .8 billion for the first lot, that is still only 2.2 billion for 288 new generation MBTs.. the same number of Abrams or German offer would set you back 5-6 billion pounds..
288 would do nicely 3 type 56 regiments need 168, training establishment 18, maintenance pool 18 that would leave you 94 hulls for the attritional reserve or 5 sabre squadrons worth of reserve tanks.. with that you could even fully equip the RWY sabre squadrons with tanks to form a proper reservist regiment ( personally I think the way the army develops warfighting max is to change how it does reserves and have then as brigades that can actually be fully constituted in wartime).
Monro. For once, I agree with you!!
We still have 3 MBT Regiments, the KRH conversion to Ajax ( courtesy of General Carter who lately has lamented the lack of tanks on TV )
was thankfully delayed so long that it did not happen.
And the plan was still to reduce to just two regardless until rumours spread a few months ago, and confirmed by the RAC themselves, that 3 would remain.
How else to fit 148 Tanks including those needed for reserve, training, trials unless they reduce to Type 44 or fewer.
Delighted, though I doubt we fundamentally disagree on much.
Agreed.
If there are other good hulls then it makes absolute sense while the line is hot.
My *guess* is that a % of the hulls were surveyed as a sample and this conservatively extrapolated to produce the number of contract hulls.
It is possible that on stripping the hulls down and surveying them for real more good ones were found than expected.
That is pure speculation on my part.
And isn’t there an option of buying some surplus CR2s back from Jordan or Oman? They’re upgrading the MRLS’s and additional quantity so why not do the same with the CR3s for a reasonable cost? I thought I read somewhere to that the US is divesting some of its Apaches so the UK could get additional 10+ there too. Acquisitions can’t just be about just drones can it?
No idea what the Omani’s are doing with their CR2’s.
I did speculate perviously that might have been the source of the extra hulls.
If those did become available then it would be a great idea to run them through the upgrader process even it is was just to create an attrition reserve.
Previously, if you talked about attritions reserve, you would always be patronised with ‘it will all be over too quickly for that to be of use’ – whereas we can now see from UKR that when the high tech runs out it turns very low/mid tech.
I have always been dubious about Apache anyway. My feeling was that it was too vulnerable to MANPADS. I know about missiles but I know very little about land warfare! In any case UK has a healthy fleet of Apache and Chinook. I would rather put the effort into more pilots/maintainers and spares/munitions for what we have ATM.
Both US Apache & Russian helicopter gunships are getting some longer range stand off missiles, so the helicopters can keep some distance from the manpads.
Chaps, the problem is the UK tank lobby (if there is one) doesn’t believe the MBT is necessary on the modern battlefield. This debate has been banging on for the last twenty years, and the result of all that is what we see today, 148 CH3. Strangely, our key allies still favour the MBT and are developing new vehicles for the future.
The ongoing comment, ‘Well, the UK is not landlocked,’ fails to overlook the fact that our tanks will probably never be used in anger in the UK but will always be deployed abroad. By not having a strong MBT fleet, we run the risk of quickly depleting our ability to contribute to a protracted conflict. However, there is a growing mood that the MBT as we know it needs a rethink following the Ukraine experience; they may have a point?
Of course Ludendorff thought the same about tanks in 1917.
The Allies lost over 10,000 tanks in Europe 1944-45
Germany lost around 600 tanks in just over a month during ‘The Battle of the Bulge’, 550 tanks on both sides were destroyed at Kursk, 12th July 1943.
The Israelis suffered a crisis of confidence when, in five days, 300 of the 900 Israeli tanks deployed on the Sinai front had been destroyed by ATGW in 1973.
The lessons are pretty much the same each time. Successful tank offensives in 1918, 1940, 1941, 1944 and so on all succeeded as a land/air battle under conditions of air superiority. The exceptions, particularly the Battle of the Bulge, initially conducted during poor flying conditions, prove the rule. As soon as the allied air force intervened, the bold/rash German offensive was routed.
And so it is with drones in Ukraine. While drones dominate the sky, armoured operations in strength are almost impossible without the same kind of poor weather that permitted the German armoured advance through the Ardennes in 1944.
But the solution is the same: air superiority down to very low level. Various AI driven data fusion C2 systems tasking clouds of fully autonomous highly manoeuvrable drones may be able to achieve air superiority in much the same way as clouds of highly manoeuvrable Sopwith Camels achieved allied air superiority in 1918. The successful tank offensives of Hamel and Amiens were thereby enabled. Counter battery was a major part of the Amiens offensive so it is no surprise that, today, both Ukrainian and Russian drone operators, and offensive fixed wing, missiles, concentrate a great deal of effort on neutralising the opposition drone operators.
Technology and tactics develop at pace during periods of conflict so it may be that one side eventually wins the air war, freeing up its armour, once more, for a combined arms manoeuvre battle, of which tanks are an indispensable part.
The air war is an enabler of victory but it takes a combined arms formation on the ground to make that victory a reality.
That is why verifiably credible conventional deterrence requires formed all arms grouped Armoured Divisions in being on the ground.
How many armoured divisions does the British Army have?
Churchill (Paris, 16 May 1940) ‘Ou est la masse de manoeuvre?’
General Gamelin: ‘Aucune!
Like everything there is a usage case – even if it is a narrow one.
Question is why you don’t launch the missile from a £50k truck rather than a multi million helicopter?
Targeting can be from a drone – one of that areas where drones do have real value.
SB, I understand that the Omanis have parked up their 38 CR2s and do not currrently use them on exercises. They are replacing them with a mix of Leopard 2A9 and the wheeled Centauro Tank Destroyer. I am sure they will also phase out their mix of M60s. There is no way that the ‘discovery’ of another 75 CR2s relates to another country’s CR2s.
The 75 CR2s will be on the MoD’s inactive list and they have always been at MoD Ashchurch, and no doubt in an abysmal condition. It’s ridiculous for the MoD to now declare then as assets.
It is also possible that the extra hulls are a mixture of an Omani buy back and some of the better hulls sat in Ashchurch?
All speculation as whilst the number of tanks is announced where the hulls have come from is ‘secret’!
Given the hulls would presumably be totally stripped, blasted and painted for the CR3 upgrade the state of the bits isn’t material if the hull itself is sound and not corroded?
Jordan has CH1, not CH2
I suspect the hulls were surveyed for suitability within the financial framework of 800 million and 148 was how many they could convert for that price.. in the end it’s not about if it’s possible to convert them it’s about how much each conversion costs.. and the balance is massively one way.. 5.4 million for a next generation MBT is insanely cheap.. a new MBT is 20million. Essentially they have a massive amount of give around economic conversion. about an extra 10 million a hull conversion costs before it comes anywhere close to the cost of a new MBT.. essentially HMG should cover the cost of any conversion that could be undertaken for sub 15million ( 25% discount on a new MBT).. I bet essentially they could convert almost all of the 288 if they went for that rule.
If they got close to 280 they could have 3 type 56 regiments.. more that that they could equip the RWY sabre squadrons and have an attritional reserve of about 2 sabre squadrons of spare tanks.
Things keep getting worse. Since that Saunders quote, the Sunak and Starmer governments have failed to increase the funding to UK conventional military capability to stop the worsening hollowing out. They make the right noises, but Starmer’s decision to wait nearly three years into a five year parliament to increase Defence spending is not a serious contribution to halting the continuous decline, and nor will that planned extra spending of 0.2% of GDP prove significant even when it finally happens.
It will be interesting to know exactly how much of “Defence” is considered as “going right”, even very well, not so well, could be better and appallingly bad? Do you reckon someone in MOD has a coloured dashboard of these things and is willing to share? Lol.😆 Just joshing but not really. Its a big machine to run so we have to cut some slack but is “lethality” actually increasing and substantially and at “pace”? The MOD speak love those two words.
They are often called RAG reports, showing Red/Amber/Green. Red RAGs containing bull are all too common, but don’t let that get you angry.
Those of us in here have been saying the same for years; 13 surface escorts, 7 FGR4 Squadrons and no scalable GBAD shows how neglected our forces have become. A century ago we were the largest navy on the planet. Today we’re barely capable of putting a Squadron of ships to sea.
If this is “rock bottom” then hopefully it will turn a corner soon. There must be a lot of good stuff going on even if the shop front may look a bit threadbare in places. The UK would be stupid to weaken its place, influence and presence when others are building up theirs.
If this is “rock bottom” then hopefully it will turn a corner soon. There must be a lot of good stuff going on even if the shop front may look a bit threadbare in places. Not sure that the UK would be stupid enough in to weaken its place, influence and presence when others are building up theirs.
*sorry for the double up
Agreed. And if anything that understates the situation. Of the surface escorts you would be very lucky to get 3 available for operations, and the T23s are on their last legs. Of their replacements the T31 were designed for constabulary duties and with no sonar are pretty useless for warfighting roles in the North Atlantic. Add to that only 1 tanker operational, no solid support ships and hardly enough mine warfare capacity to keep even 1 port open reliably. The Army side is worse still, with just 1 battery of 155mm guns, obsolete tanks and IFVs, almost no working UAVs, no and pitifull ammunition stocks. The RAF are the only force that currently have real warfighting potential – but those 7 FGR4 squadrons typically are down to 10 aircraft with minimal reserves (following retirement and scrapping of the Tranche 1 aircraft), and don’t have the trained pilot ratio essential for warfighting. Also the 2 F-35 squadrons have no stand-off attack weapons and inadequate spares and engineering support for a wartime tempo. All in all the UK, once a mainstay of European NATO strength, is now becoming irrelevant as Germany ploughs ahead with a huge recruitment programme and capability expansion.
OK, we know the problem.
MPs keep talking, but where is the plan of action/ budget to address these issues?
In the Defence Industrial Strategy the government said it would be producing a Defence Finance and Investment Strategy (DFIS) early in 2026. This report says that will be by March 2026.
Who wants to bet that after the DIP is produced we’ll all be told to wait for the DFIS for more details?
How did you guess that was the next step in Starmer’s performative procrastination so that any spending lands in the next parliament. Of course they won’t be any money to spend has Rachel will have spent the entire term creating black holes to fill in….
I do wonder if the DIP is going to be produced by the new Supreme Head, Intelligence Targeting? Hint it is a joke…..an old one…..
The DIP!
I bet here and now most of that will be re announcements of old news, packaged as “new” with lots of industrial stuff, closure of bases on the excuse we have too many, and a few small carrots that might never actually arrive.
The government must drop the absurd ‘net zero’ idea.
The (modelled) assumptions upon which ‘net zero’ is based are very far from being scientifically evidenced in any case. At a conservative estimate, losing ‘net zero’ will free up 1-2% of GDP immediately.
‘BEIS’s [the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s] own analysis find the costs to be 40% higher, at around £70bn per annum, but still within the annual cost envelope of 1–2% of GDP estimated by the Committee. On the basis of these estimates, the total cost of transitioning to a zero-carbon economy is likely to be well in excess of a trillion pounds.’
We know what to do with a 1-2% of GDP increase to Defence spending because we have just had a Strategic Defence Review.
None of the major emitters are doing anything to reduce their emissions, in any case.
And why should they?
‘The concept of ‘climate crisis’ has a long history and has been increasingly employed by media and politics in recent decades, shaping collective perceptions of climate variability and change. However, in the absence of a critical definition, it risks fostering unrealistic interpretations – either alarmist or overly optimistic. To promote a rational understanding of ‘climate crisis’ we propose a framework of Response Indicators (RINDs) based on the IPCC AR6 Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs).
The Mann-Kendall trend test applied to RIND time series reveals that most indicators do not exhibit statistically significant worsening trends. This challenges crisis narratives in specific contexts and highlights the need for localised, data-driven adaptation strategies rather than generalised alarm….
Such an approach would help prevent subjective uses of ‘climate crisis’’
Gianluca Alimonti, INFN&Università degli Studi, Milano, Oct 2025