Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin told MPs that the United Kingdom is not in military “deficit” and continues to play a key role in NATO’s deterrence posture against Russia, despite concerns about funding, mass, and readiness.
Addressing the Defence Committee, Admiral Radakin acknowledged the limited pace of near-term change but emphasised the importance of strategic partnerships, nuclear capabilities, and technological programmes such as AUKUS and GCAP.
“I am not going to pretend to the Committee that there is going to be a vast change in the next two years,” he said. “But I can tell you that the substance of what keeps us safe and why you should be assured of our safety and our ability to act around the world is with the armed forces that you have and how we operate.”
Pressed by Jesse Norman MP on the imbalance between long-term capital investment and short-term operational capability, Radakin rejected the notion that the UK is currently lagging behind.
“Where I disagree with you is your assumption that we are in deficit now. We are extraordinarily strong,” he said. “We are a nuclear power in the world’s strongest military alliance with America as our principal ally.”
He continued: “There are more dangerous threats out there. We have to get stronger in order to maintain and even increase the overmatch. We are not in a deficit trying to play catch-up.”
Radakin cited NATO’s scale and capacity, with over a billion people and 3.5 million personnel in uniform, as key elements of deterrence. “Russia is struggling in Ukraine. It would be enormously difficult for China to seize Taiwan militarily,” he added.
Asked whether the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) had placed enough emphasis on operational areas like drones, artificial intelligence, and munitions, Radakin said he would prioritise those if current spending were to be increased.
“If you ask me where I would want to thicken, it would be anything AI, anything autonomy, far more drones,” he explained. “While I welcome the additional resilience that comes from ammunition factories, I would also want to deepen my stockpiles while those factories are being built.”
Committee member Lincoln Jopp queried the credibility of the UK’s posture by referencing the number of tanks in service. Radakin responded that readiness and deterrence should be assessed at the strategic level, not by individual platform counts.
“It may be that having 50 tanks or 100 tanks is not necessarily going to be the defining factor as to whether the country remains safe,” he said.
“We are a beneficiary of a collective group of nations in Europe. Never mind our 50 tanks or our modest increase in the Army; they are increasing their armies by tens of thousands and they are increasing their tanks by hundreds.”
Radakin concluded that Britain contributes in areas where it holds comparative advantage, such as anti-submarine warfare, nuclear deterrence, and next-generation air power.
“It might be nuclear, it might be our anti-submarine warfare, it might be our fifth and sixth-generation jets, it might be an Army that is embracing drone technology faster than any other,” he said. “Then we can link that micro point to, ‘Are we safe? Are we deterring Russia? Are we getting it right?’”
Ok but what isnt being acknowledged are the lessons from Ukraine.
Attrition will happen
The fire , drones, munitions don’t all go one way…towards our enemies they can and will shot back.
So having an adequately sized military is necessary.
6 destroyers and 8 frigates isn’t enough.
6 soon to become 7 attack submarines isn’t enough
Only 100 frontline fighter aircraft with a delay in introducing improved radar sets until 2030 isn’t good enough
Having no viable GBAD isn’t good enough.
Listen to the Sky Podcast wargame. It’s more than a little alarming
We have NATO…great but does NATO genuinely have our backs…doubt it. Any activation of article V has to be ratified by all, therefore how many countries would fulfill their treaty responsibilities.
Probably the Scandinavian countries, maybe the Dutch. Doubt France, Spain, Italy or Germany would rush to our defence…but they would expect us to do that for them.
I think Putin knows this. He will wait his time and then when ready look to fracture the alliance.
I believe they have acknowledged that with 13 frigates on order and now being delivered and a plan to order 12 SSN’s. However what the CDS states is accurate. NATO has 1 billion of the wealthiest people in the world with 3.5 million armed personnel. It massively over matches Russia and China combined.
The difference between the UK having 50 or 100 tanks in a theatre is irrelevant to any outcome on the battlefield.
The only threat to NATO is the current US administration. The US provides very little in the way of actual ground forces in any NATO plan it can easily be replaced on the ground. What it does provide almost unilaterally is C4ISTAR, deep strike and SEAD.
If NATO is to survive it must be stronger than anyone member and the UK should focus on providing additional capabilities that can support or even supplant US capabilities in a European conflict.
That’s a big increase in cruise missiles for deep strike. An increase in nuclear warheads. A further substantial purchase of f35 for SEAD/DEAD. An increase in E7 numbers and a further role out of the ISTARI constellation.
That’s pretty much what the current SDR 25 focused on and the previous reviews in 2021 and 2023.
If you read the French equivalent it’s also very much what they are focused on,
Meanwhile Poland is focused on getting half a million men in uniform and Germany is focusing on missile and air defence.
In addition the UK is focusing on the North Atlantic as it’s our single biggest threat and NATO’s second biggest threat after the eastern flank.
Great post – NATO has been secure in the sense it’s defensive ie it’s not poked the bear. Putin knows that with Trump and the US sidelined that as soon as remaining NATO countries (with so few assets) start losing tanks/ troops/ aircraft it will be self preservation.
Radakin and systematic governments are deluded if they believe our security lies in other nations.
This latest SDR was a chance to rebuild our conventional capabilities and depth – it failed and for the next 5 years we’re in serious peril
They would come to our defence because of the huge impact on all EU nations if one is under serious attack. Thos is,the whole point of NATO. It isn’t an option for all thr members to turn a blind eye. That’s why we train so much together.
On the seas I agree, on Land we are a mess, a joke and and paper tiger. If you think any thing else go take a drug test. On paper we look ok but the reality is lack of spares/ammo/ man power and the age of most of our kit says other wise.
It is interesting how “a country being safe” iand “to keep us safe” s the go to vogue phrase for them, and in endless MoD statements over the years.
Its not just that, its being strong enough militarily to impose yourself on the world stage in your nations interests if you have to.
And we’re not.
I guess it stems from the stigma of Empire, and all that nonsense that’s crept in, sounds too imperial.
So safe it is.
Except our borders are breached daily and our assets are lined up like skittles waiting.
I see the Mossad did the same as UKR yesterday. Smuggled in Drones, and goodnight.
No edit to fix typos and missing ‘ sorry.
Hey Daniele.. I listened to General Sir Richard Barrons on Forces news. He mentioned the Army is thinking about the future when it comes to a Infantry fighting vehicle. He said the army realises the balance between the Ajax and Boxer but not a planned Infantry fighting vehicle leaves the balance of armoured vehicles not as it should be if the British army is to carry out the sort of NATO tasks they are required to do. So the army are now looking into the possibility of having a Infantry fighting vehicle, will see. Certainly that caught my attention when he briefly talked about it.
It’s all so tiresome
These comments sections always are.
Nobody is forcing you to read them?
I think it’s much more nuanced than what’s being said, if the UK mainland was attacked, whether NATO article 5 is activated or not do you not think even Trump would be outraged and the full force of not just the UK military but French and US militaries too, some of the most powerful militaries in the world. The question is, if Gibraltar, the Falklands or Cyprus was attacked could we defend it as likely we’d be on our own.
Similar situation with France, we’d be there supporting but less so if it’s one of their territories.
Radakin’s thesis that we are ‘extraordinary strong’ militarily is a bit of nonsense really.
The largest military threat to NATO and UK is Russian aggression. That will primarily be an airland war.
The number of fast jet combat aircraft we can contribute is a measly 149 – half what Germany or France contribute, less than Italy or even Spain. We are not ‘extraordinarily strong’ in the air and the very small numbers of Wedgetail, Rivet Joint, Poseidon and Voyager tanker are far below what we need.
The land element is even worse. We only have 4.5 combat manoeuvre brigades, compared to 6,7, 8 or 9 fielded.by France, Spain, Germany and Italy. We are supposed to be the principal land force on the North German Plain and Scandinavia, but can no longer fulfill that role, because we have so little to put in the field. And what we do have is generally long in the tooth equipment, with big gaps in field artillery air defence. and a tiny number of tanks.
Rather than ‘extraordinarily strong’ on land, we are actually extraordinarily weak, the weakest the army has ever been.
The third element of warfare, at sea, is the minor element in any conflict with Russia. The Russian navy does not currently pose any significant surface threat to NATO navies and only a limited submarine one.. Yet the RN already has an ever-bigger wishlist of
future vessels which will, as usual, suck the lifeblood out of the
defence budget, at the expense of air and land. It seems that HMG
has a NATO-first policy, but the RN has its own agenda to be a significant force out-of-area. Our national wealth and defence budget
cannot support anything like that.
Radakin and HMG and MOD continually big-up that we have a nuclear deterrent and two carriers. But hiding behind that headline, we are extraordinarily weak in the air and on land. The deterrent might or might not deter Russian use of nuclear weapons. The operational carrier might be of value in some far-off naval encounter, or may prove to be something of a sitting duck for enemy missile onslaught.
We basically continue to be wedded to a couple of very expensive classes of equipment, which those in ruling circles like to portray as the UK being a big actor on the world stage. It is alas a false idea of prestige, when we have so little in air and land forces to bring to the table. We are rather ‘fur coat and nae breeks’, as we say in Scotland about pretence – looks good from the exterior, but no money left for the underwear.
Hope for a positive change with an airman taking over as CDS and hopefully a defence outlook less dominated by naval and prestige distractions.
I think we should just concentrate on our strengths, that being ceremony and smart uniforms and leave the fighting to the others. We can use our oft wasted defence budget on new shiny bridles and big drums and forget about pretending we have a credible fighting force. After all we have 500 horses and only a handfull of tanks so we are moving that way.
Take away Trident and the carriers, neither of which can be used is conventional warfare, we aren’t as strong as thinks.
I think he knows a little more about this subject and our capabilities than you.
Moron. Of course he does, but this is a comments section. Do you not believe in free speech? Are you a disgruntled Corbynista?
So when Admiral Radakin told the Defence Select Committee there was no point in getting an interim Harpoon replacement, because we couldn’t get one before 2027, was he A) Ignorant, or B) Lying to Parliament?
Just because the man says something, doesn’t make it true.
Lol.. Storm Shadow replacement supposedly 2028.. Harpoons is 2032
He seems to missing the point, that for example the Royal Artillery is very short of guns
Fair enough we may have advantage in Submarine warfare . But for the rest of the playing field ? Come on CDS really, and sixth Generation aircraft like how many years away is the UK away from these entering service if ever that is . May of been more appropriate to say the UK should be spending at least 3.5% on our defence budget .And this he knows is very true but 😷
Delusional nonesense. Most of our forces & capabilities are weaker than any time since WW2, so weak that Putin felt fine annexing & invading UKR, China constantly attacking us & stealing IP. So strong we’re still disposing of our two biggest, best LPDs. So strong we don’t have a missile defence system, just a few systems to protect a fraction of sites that are wide ope to missile/drone strikes. We still seem to ignore all going on in the world & plan as though we have at least a decade before we’d be at war.