The UK Government has confirmed it is still evaluating the cost and feasibility of delivering military capabilities requested by NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), amid broader questions about national defence priorities.
The issue was raised during a House of Lords debate on future UK defence capabilities. Crossbench peer Lord Stirrup, former Chief of the Defence Staff, asked what steps the Ministry of Defence had taken to assess the cost of meeting NATO’s force structure requirements, and how these compared to the UK’s current defence capabilities.
Responding on behalf of the Government, Labour peer Lord Coaker, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, said that discussions between the UK and NATO — including with SACEUR — were ongoing. He confirmed that the Ministry is reviewing both the cost implications and the UK’s capacity to meet the alliance’s expectations.
“We are currently looking at both the cost and our ability to provide the capabilities,” Lord Coaker said. “It is my understanding that those negotiations are still under way.”
The exchange highlighted growing scrutiny of the UK’s ability to meet NATO’s evolving strategic requirements, especially as the alliance ramps up deterrence efforts in response to Russian aggression.
Crossbench peer Lord Houghton of Richmond, also a former Chief of the Defence Staff, pressed the Minister further, asking whether the Government’s priority was to deter Russia directly or to offset potential future reductions in US security guarantees to Europe.
In reply, Lord Coaker reaffirmed the Government’s “NATO first” defence policy, stating that it aligns with both UK national security interests and the broader European security environment. He noted that while NATO remains the primary focus, the UK also recognises its global defence commitments.
“The important point is that the ‘NATO first’ policy does not mean ‘NATO only’,” he said. “We will also accept the responsibilities we have elsewhere.”
The UK is one of several NATO members currently under review by the alliance as it implements new force structure targets, shaped by SACEUR, to strengthen deterrence in Eastern Europe. This includes expectations for deployable formations, equipment readiness, and sustainability of forces.
The discussion follows recent announcements from Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Government to increase defence spending, aiming to reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027. However, with fiscal pressures mounting and detailed planning still underway, questions remain over whether the UK will be able to meet both its NATO commitments and wider global defence ambitions.
Further clarity is expected in the forthcoming Defence Review.
Apparently NATO/SACEUR wants 6 deployable Brigades out of us.
Proper ones, not the paper formations that constitute some of our Brigades.
Finding CS CSS for 4 Bde and reorganizing either 11 or 1 Bde would go towards this.
More CS CSS are needed. That can only come from infantry Battalions if the overall establishment is not increasing by any great margin.
An Army of 73k should have more than 4 Bdes that can deploy.
12,20,7,16.
Morning Daniele,
Any indications of what NATO is looking for with regards to Maritime and Air Power? It would be interesting to know how NATO sees us contributing to the overall alliance capabilities. I know we agree on the idea that the UK should focus on the maritime flank, but does SACEUR see it that way?
As for the Army being able to furnish 6 Brigades I will defer to your assessment, certainly I have often wondered why we seem to be a bit thin when it comes to frontline army units. Also, you appear to be suggesting that some infantry battalions re-role to CS and CSS? If so that will certainly stir up the cap badge mafia 🙂 . Although, why it should I don’t know as I am aware that during WW2 Foot Guards had tanks and some Hussars had 25pdrs, and I am pretty damned sure that many other regiments took up non traditional roles..! So why not now – we are in a tight spot.
Cheers CR
Hi CR
No idea re Air and Sea power NATO asks I’m afraid. There were reports a few months ago re NATO requirements that HMG were refusing to make them public, which does not surprise me as Labours supposed “greater transparency” has become an even more solid wall so far.
Yes, I think it inevitable some Infantry Battalions are disbanded to release posts for CS CSS roles. Which ones, and how that is organised, that will get the fireworks going. Where else does the manpower to rebuild CS CSS come from if HMG will not increase establishment by even just a few thousand?
I know the Batteries in the GBAD formations have had extra posts added and Gurkha sub units are expanding in number ( Gurkha Artillery Regiment. )
The Army is badly unbalanced as CS CSS were regularly cut to fend off the Cap Badge Mafia, especially after 2015 Strike plans when we had 5 “sets” of CS CSS for 5 deployable Brigades, plus 16 AA, plus 3 Commando.
Hi Daniele.To my mind the U.K. has one role on the ground that it can do well. That is to support the J.E.F countries. Geographically and politically we are the best placed ot support them during peace and war. If Germany and Poland cannot stop Russia in Central Europe the west has lost. British air, ground and naval forces are best used in our main sphere of operations combined with an ability to act outside NATO should the need arise.
Hi Geoff.
Agreed.
JEF, North should be our area, with a wider overall priority being the RN and RAF allied out out of area capability.
Hey Daniele,
It’s a little off topic, but you seem pretty informed and balanced, so how do you see the SDR turning out?
Oh Leh.
I’d like to be hopeful.
But I recall 95, 97, 2004, 2010, 2015, and all the rest all too well.
I’d say a huge lot of spin, lots of re announcing old news as “new”
Emphasis on high tech ignoring all the ongoing problems caused by endless cuts, that being lack of mass and overstretch.
A few carrots thrown in….which, to get, mean cuts.
Said carrots will of course be nibbled further down the line but most won’t notice.
Sorry for my cynicism. I’ve seen it with HMG too many times.
Need corps of infantry and single battalion regiments. As many cap badges as you want then. Like the Italians
That, ironically, would be a reverse of Future Army Structures, which previously amalgamated Battalions into “super Regiments”
The Italians use the continental system so they’re single battalion regiments don’t really compare to the British Armies structure, they operate on a completely different principle.
A British Infantry Battalion is an HQ Coy (Consisting of Btn Main HQ, Btn TAC HQ, Med, Logistics, Mechanics etc), the Rifle Companies, and the Support Company (Consisting of Mortars, Snipers, Pioneers etc)
An Italian Infantry Regiment consists of the Regimental HQ (Consisting of Regimental Main HQ, Med, Logistics, Mechanics etc), then an Infantry Battalion (consisting of the TAC HQ, the Rifle Companies and the Support Company).
The British Regiment is a non-Tactical formation that handles the management and training of it’s personnel, as well as recruitment, and the organisation of charities to support it’s veterans.
In the Italian system single Battalion Regiments make sense because it’s just a different way of organising a Battalion, giving the fighting part of a Battalion an HQ that doesn’t worry about the CSS at all. In the British system a single Battalion Regiment is wasteful because you then multiply RHQ’s unnecessarily.
I joined regular Army in 2007 – we had 10 deployable brigades…. and there was 3Cdo Bde in addition. When you think about it, that’s a rapid decline, especially when we were deployed on a consistent Div (-) scale for much of that period.
10 Bob? Assume you mean all arms rather than supporting Brigades.
4 Mech, 7 and 20 Armoured in 1 Div.
1,12,19 Mech in 3 Div. 19 was then cut and turned into 19 Light.
11 Infantry, 16 AA.
Which am I forgetting?
52 brigade was briefly beefed up into a larger / regular formation to do a tour on Op Herrick around that time.
Ah, yes.
Good. I am glad that external scrutiny is being applied to the UK MOD. it sounds like HMG have already started to squeal and their feet haven’t even been held to the fire yet.
The combat arms of the army are already slashed to the bone and are now wafer thin. The infantry in particular has been chiselled away in numbers and is already at full stretch against its committments. The claim that we have 32 battalions is just PR spin. 10 or more of these are actually, by design at only half strength:
– the 4 SFABs
– the 4 Rangers bns
– the Cyprus UN bn
– 1 Para (which is part of SF Bde, rather than line infantry)
– Royal Gib Regt (2 regular companies only)
– and I would guess possibly 2 Yorks as well, in their Land Warfare Centre role.
When you go through the infantry deployments, there really is nothing free to form a sixth brigade.
If NATO wants this sixth brigade, then Starmer and Reeves will need to factor in an increase in army numbers as part of this future 3% target. Not just infantry, the other 10 corps would need additional numbers and units to bring these six brigades up to establishment strength.
The term ‘cap badge mafia’ is overused, not actually understood and pretty irrelevant IMO. It referred to three regts traditionally jockeying for their man for the CGS job, rather than line regts fighting amalgamations or disbandment.
–
7 and 4 Brigades have, what, off my head 5 and 6 Battalions of Infantry?
Could they not get by with 3 each? Why do they have so many, when Manoeuvre Brigades have, 3 at most 4 combat elements? ( Tank, Recce, 2 Infantry )
There are 2 Battalions for Cyprus, not one.
Could one be sufficient?
11 SFAB Battalions might go, but includes the Irish Guards, who won’t.
1 Para is a no go due to its role.
I think 4 Bde now has 3 regular bns and 7 Bde has 4. Dern will know better. The Cyprus and Estonia bns seem to be added to one bde or another, so what we see on paper is not actually the immediarely deployable force.
To field 6 bdes, we would need an infantry orbat something like:
I inf Div
– New bde 3
– 4 Inf Bde 3
– 7 LM Bde 3
– 16 AA Bde. 3
3 Arm Inf Div
– 12 Arm Inf Bde. 2
– 20 Arm Inf Bde. 2
– Estonia BG. 1
Strategic command
– Overseas garrisons. 3
– SFAB bns. 3
– Rangers. 3
UK Home Force
Public duties. 2 + 4 companies
N Ireland. 1
Other
Land Warfare Centre 1
1 R Irish (Recon role) 1
1 Para (SF role) 1
R Gib Regt. 1
OPFOR companies. 0 + 3 companies
Land Warfare Centre 1
Total: 34 + 7 companies.
We currently have 32 + 7 companies, so would not have enough for a 6th brigade. Moreso if we increased our Estonia force from a BG to a bde, that would need an additional inf bn + of course a lot of CS and CSS troops)
The main lacuna that jumps out is that of we deploy the above, we basically have no spare regular bns to.act as the nucleus of any reserve bdes. (I know the army doesn’t plan to field any reserve bdes, unlike the rest of the anglosphere – a very odd peacetime approach to mobilising numbers). We really need 4 such home-based bns,
one per what should be 4 divisional districts.
So basically, we are a good way short of infantry, like all the other CS and CSS arms. The last thing we need is to go hacking them down further!
I doubt we can rob the missing units from the SFAB bns. They all have specific regional roles – West Africa, East Africa. Middle East and one other, we set it up like that because the US wanted Euro boots on the ground in Europe’s back yard. I know we currently take half of one public duties bn off for other duties, currently the IG IIRC, but then restore the bn for the summer season.
Dern can rightly criticise some of my headings and maybe allocations, but the big picture is that we don’t really have anything spare to raise another brigade.
Have to hope SACEUR doesn’t look at Finland and the Suwalki gap next, or he’ll be after us for another couple of EFP bns!
Excuse spelling mistakes, harder work posting on a mobile.
The SFAB and Rangers bns should of course read 4 each, not 3,. So we are 4 bns minimum short for a sixth bde.
Hi mate.
Initial thoughts having a quick scan,indeed, Dern is even more indepth than me! It is indeed tight, but my analysis differs a tad and I’m a bit more optimistic.
The “6th Brigade” would most likely be a reorganised 1 DRSB. If it is to be a part of 3 Division it would need 2 infantry Battalions and the existing KRH Armoured Regiment.
( The CS CSS another story but we’re looking at infantry here )
1 Inf doesn’t need a new Brigade as you list it, as it has 4,7,16 already but 4x lacks the regular enablers to be counted.
So you don’t need 3 Bns for a new Bde there.
You note 1 R Irish separately, I believe it’s part of 16x alongside 2,3 Para, and the RGR Bn, so 4 Bns for 16, not 3.
Your LWC allocation I assume you mean 2 Yorks in E&TG? 1 Bn, not 2.
The NI posted Bns I recall form part of Rangers and 1 Inf Divs Bdes.
R Gib Reg I don’t tend to count amongst the Infantry Battalions due to its hybrid home defence role, though it’s affiliated to RAR.
Yes, the 2 Cyprus rotations have now split, 1 each from 1 and 3 Divisions.
Gives:
3 Div
12 Bde. 2 Bns
20 Bde. 2 Bns
1 DRSB reorged 2 Bns ( taken from 1 Div and given Boxer )
Estonia 1 Bn
1 Div
4 Bde. 4 Bns
7 Bde 4 Bns
16 Bde 4 Bns
DSF 1 Bn ( 1 Para )
Brunei 1 Bn
Cyprus 2 Bns ( from 1 and 3 Divs Bdes on rotation, so in effect double hatting, which takes place already. )
PD 1 Bn
SOB. 4 Bns
11 SFAB 4 Bns
E&TG, 1 Bn ( 2 Yorks )
31 Battalions. 6 Brigades.
The extra CS CSS posts could come from 3 of the 4 Bns in 11 SFAB and 1 Bn each from 4 and 7 Bdes. You’d hope they’d at least try to expand by a few hundred posts as well, and the Gurkha Batteries forming could release posts for, possibly, a new GBAD Regiment.
Indeed, we wait for Dern to tear it all up!
One thing is clear, we have too few Bdes for a 73k count.
Okay well firs thing I’ll tear up is there is no such formation as “SOB.” There’s ASOB, (which is technically not the same thing as the Ranger Regiment) but no SOB.
The big issue with six brigades is not the lack of infantry, there’s enough of that (in fact with Reserves you can easily build six regular brigades of 5 manuever elements each (4 Regular Infantry/RAC and 1 Reserve Infantry Btn), while retaining 11 X and ASOB. The problem is where are the guns that’ll support 1st AI Brigade, and the MLRS? Where is the Artillery to support 4X and give 1 XX divisional fires?
Equally you’re not going to get the desired headcount for those units by cutting Infantry, because then you won’t have enough to create another armoured infantry brigade (7X and 4X going to maneuver formations with 3 Infantry Battalions each realeases exactly 1 Battalion from each to 1 AIX, and 1 remains in Cyprus (or two/1 to Brunei depending on which version of future soldier you are looking at), that leaves you nothing left for slashing to get extra artillery and logistics.
Okay you can slash SFAB, get a few hundred pids that way, but that’s not happening as SFAB is a done concept and is going to the RS concept instead.
The cyprus UN battalion is not Infantry, it’s a rolling commitment that is filled by a number of units, usually not teeth arms, and sometimes even reserves. Everything from Signals to RLC has been a Cyprus UN battalion. You are confusing the UN mission with the two resident infantry Battalions in the Sovereign base areas, which themselves do not fall under UN control. None of these three Cyprus units are half strength btw.
1st Infantry Division already has 3 Manuever Elements, so unless you are taking 16AA out of the Orbat you don’t need to add another one, as Daniele said. (Not sure why you have an Infantry Battalion permanently assigned to N. Ireland, that seems like a waste taking it out of the normal fighting Orbat). Also not sure why you have 1 RI seperate from 16AA, it’s an integral part of that brigade and without it 16AA is unbalanced compared to the others (AI 4 Manuever Units 2 RAC/2 Infantry, Mech Inf: 1 RAC/3 Infantry 16AA 4 Infantry).
You also have LWC there twice.
The big thing is adding the CS and CSS enablers for 1 and 4 Brigades. There are different ways to slice it, but we have just enough infantry for six brigades and standing commitments, plus ASOB and 11 Brigade.
I think we have to say no.
The only existential struggle we are likely to be in over the next ten years is EuroNATO v Russia without the USA.
What we need from the UK for that are more Nucs, then space intel, then better home defense (RAF, GBAD and coastal ASW and infrastructure defense). then anything left can go forward: The RN, some of the RAF, and the Army.
In this situation the Army is a nice to have and should be our lowest priority.
I think politics will scupper that. While I agree with the RN RAF Intell first posture and always have, the DSACEUR is always a Brit, so we need an acceptable force for NATO Land.
You got to love the RNRAFDSACEURNATO thing…. whatever it means !
On Thursdays here in Canadia, we often gather for a WTFAYABOAITNOCAAHA’S.
It’s a growing concern given the Yellow Hair’s re-Juveniled Bluster.
We hope his Little Big Horn moment soon arrives.
Yellow hair was a name given to Custer, It is rather apt given this latest Custer bluster.
Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
SACEUR has always been an American. That needs to change.
Gòodness! Our land committment to NATO is supposed to be 6 arm inf bdes, organised in 2 Divs, and they also want a bde from us for Estonia.
These are critical contributions just to provide a minimal land force on the North German Plain to support Poland. At present, there is just one German arm inf Div, the other is in the south of Germany, plus some Dutch, Belgian and Danish units. That adds up to a pretty small 2-division Corps – we are meant to add the other 2 Divs.
Air power is an equal priority.
The RN’s NATO role is a smaller one, primarily ASW in the East Atlantic.
NATO is looking to us to make good on our LAND commitments primarily.
Actually our NATO commitments are way beyond ASW in the East Atlantic any major war will involve significant navel campaigns in the greenland sea, Norwegian Sea, North Sea, eastern Mediterranean and a very significant set of battles around the Barents Sea.
UK do not have Navy for all that.
We have a navy that forms the backbone of that effort.. what have the rest of European NATO got.. our efforts should be focused on that bit of the fight. Not matching Poland and Germany heavy brigades in Central Europe.
When pushes comes to shove the U.K. is an island and if the Germans and others cannot put a force on the ground to deter Russia then it isn’t for the U.K. to do so. For the sea blind afflicted go and read some history books to understand our strengths and unique vulnerabilities they haven’t changed for hundreds of years and won’t going forward.
We are the back up force and yes we should have 6 Brigades that are capable of being deployed to NATO but fundamentally our priority has to be SLOC, which now not only must consider shipping but now the vast undersea infrastructure that supports our entire way of life including energy requirements.
Any concerted attack on this infrastructure or shipping and we are quickly out of the fight whether we have 6 Brigades or no.
This requires an uptick in the size of the relevant maritime forces both sea and air.
Equally important our air defences capability from missile attack rely solely on 6 Type 45s, which needs urgent action. Then finally we have our role on the ground that should focus on the JEF area, where our reinforced maritime and air assets would make a huge difference.
What SDR must do is to set out a clear plan of how the extra money is going to be spent as we progress up to 3% of GDP.
That does mean us being able to increase the size and capability of the Army but not in some kind of vacuum where other capabilities are not also enhanced or neglected, which is a direct threat to the U.K. It requires cross party support and a real timeline agreed and not political BS speak such as ‘when economic conditions permit’. We would have lost WW2 with that mentality.
Finally we need to ensure strategic industries such as virgin steel making are protected and if necessary nationalised to show we are committed to staying in a fight for the long haul.
“accept the responsibilities we have elsewhere” is a curious choice of words. I’d have thought ‘acknowledge the interests we have elsewhere’ would be more appropriate.
I think the request for 6 deployable brigade’s and all the enablers should not be a surprise. Poland and German defence and intelligence officers are openly stating from 2027 onwards (same timeframe as China is stating they will “reunify” with Taiwan, Russia will have +1.5 million personnel in uniform and a far higher proportion of those in combat roles.
That is why the British army needs to be able to deploy a minimum of 6 brigades.
We have to face facts, the defence cuts of the last few decades were utter folly. Moronic in the extreme.
The time to rearm and re-equip is now. If we fail to meet this threat then there is a very real chance of being militarily defeated on the battlefield by a resurgent Russia and all her stooges (Belarus, North Korea, Chechnya, Iran etc)
HMG need to put their hands in their pockets and get this done.
6 deployable brigade’s with 3-5 in reserve is a minimum for a country of 70 million people and a GDP ranked 5-6 in the world.
Very well put, you hit the nail on the head. The primary threat facing NATO Europe is an air/land one from Russia and chums. We are not currently in a position to meet our fairly minimalist commitments to NATO to meet that threat.
Because of our naval heritage, there is always this push from some quarters to sail off on the high seas to recapture our glorious past. But we no longer have the sea and air power to do so in other than a minor way. We need to focus our efforts on meeting the main threat, which comes from Russia and chums.
In reality Russia is not throwing half a million men into Poland. It will try to isolate one of the Baltic states..one of the best things we could do in that case is crack the Russian northern bastion and destroy the Russian navy..
Let’s be really clear the UK provides half the nuclear deterrence, its 50%+ of the carrier force its 50%+ of the SSN fleet.. in the end we provide a huge amount or capability to Europe…other nations need to take on the vast bulk of the ground force needs because they are not burdened with the nuclear and navel elements.
We can safely assume that SACEUR knows what our various contributions are! Nonetheless, it sounds like he specifically wants more combat brigades from us.
This is not particularly surprising really: pro rata to our population, the UK is 29th out of the 32 NAT0 members in terms of serving armed service personnel in relation to population. Canada, Luxembourg and iceland are worse!
I am glad that Poland is not going to be attacked, according to you. I do wonder why they are spending more of their GDP on defence than any other member and are raising additional brigades and ordering more aircraft and ships…. Perhaps they have a clearer view of things?
Of course, Poland has to be prepared to fight on two fronts. One being.Russian forces coming through Belarus, the other being defending the Suwalki Gap, the thin road artery to the Baltic Republics. Cut that, and the Russians have a land bridge to Kaliningrad – and seal off NATO forces in the Baltics to sea access only.
Hence why Poland is making a BIG effort to get its forces ready.
Trouble is we have a big population and a a need to focus on the geostrategic picture outside of Europe..infact Europe as a whole needs to start developing more of an understanding of the wider geopolitical world..dependence on the U.S. was not just about defending Europe..but Europe has slept walked away from the thing that keeps you strong..world wide engagement..European nations are screwed if Russia, china and the U.S. divide up all the world’s resources in Africa and South America etc..
SACEUR is only interested in European nations defending Europe and actually if I’m being a cynic getting them to stay home so the US can secure all it wants..
In the end Europe needs to consider how it can against be a player in the world and that means the UK and France need to focus on wider geostrategic goals while nations like Germany and Poland lead on defending the European Russian boarder regions. If every European nation stays home, Europe will become as impotent and powerless as Africa…
That assumes mate, that the 6 Brigade report is intact accurate.
But seeming as SACEUR also wanted us to form one of the reserve NATO Corps, then 2 Divisions of 6 Bdes, plus Divisional, Corps Troops, fits that.
You can be sure that if Russia makes a move on Baltics, Poland will move forward to defend them.
This hides a very very important point..the Uk delivers a lot of capabilities to NATO and its allies that go above and beyond our own needs and armvasty more expensive and capable than what any other European nation delivers… let’s look at our peers..how much does Spain deliver to NATO, how much does Germany deliver to NATO even a country like Poland is essentially delivering capabilities that are first and foremost focused on its own defence ( as Poland said even with a huge land army and living next door it would not send peacekeepers to Ukraine. Even France does not put its Nuclear deterrent under NATO.
So lets be really really clear no other European NATO nation puts its money where its mouth is when compared to the UK and historically we have got nothing back in any reciprocal agreements..because well you know it was part of NATO.
As essentially NATO is now a dead duck..we really need to consider carefully what we expect for our continued involvement and especially what we would expect from any EU based defence union that may need to replace or jack up NATO..
When you consider what the UK brings to any alliance its irreplaceable strategy stuff.. in reality any old nation can provide a reasonable heavy brigade when you think running an armoured brigade ( 20th ) costs 300million a year…to run and maybe 2 billion to buy.. our nuclear deterrence which is assign to NATO costs 3 billion a year with a set up cost of 20billion essentially easily the equivalent of 10 armoured brigades..my question is how many European nations provide 10 armoured brigades to NATO ?
That’s before you get to the SSNs and 2 70,000 ton aircraft carriers…
This is especially relevant if we are negotiating with the EU on an extra NATO military alliance….concessions will be needed across the whole relationship..Europe can no longer just go…but you do all that for NATO.
That’s all true. The pushback should be that Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Austria should also be tasked to provide more combined arms capability.
NATO in terms of European NATO can be identified by a real hodgepodge of national capabilities not integrating into a viable all arms force. Sure European NATO outnumbers Russia and have a quantitative and qualitative edge but those forces would need to all combine into one force.
There isn’t currently the political will to match what is required to national defence budgets.
The UK does deliver disproportionately more unique cutting edge capabilities then most nations except for France but we need to leverage these capabilities by adding mass.
The push back to NATO should be maybe 4 deployable brigades then with 3-4 in reserve and an army around 80,000 personnel with upto 25,000 in the TA/ reserves.
Our air force does need another tranche of typhoons to see them through to Tempest as well as 36 more F35Bs before caping our contribution out at that number and focussing on Tempest.
More MPAs X6 are needed
A400M with tanker capability would be excellent as would immediately putting the Wedgetails number back to 5 aiming for 7/9 by 2030.
GBAD needs sorting out but should cost a fortune 6-7 SAMP/T batteries, some radar guided 40 mm Bofors and land based dragonfire as well as more land Ceptor batteries and we are in a relatively good state. The estimated maximum cruise and conventionally armed intermediate range ballistic missiles strike capability of Russia according to synthesis from multiple sources is around 500 missiles.
Now we’ve all seen Russian missiles inaccuracy in Ukraine and their inability to coordinate a strategic air campaign (something NATO is damn good at)
So an ability to defend ourselves from a few hundred munitions not all arriving at the same time or being particularly accurate would seem sensible.
Navy needs more frigates and subs as well as Proteus type offshore infrastructure protection ships and crucially the unmanned systems to deliver a viable defender.
Another batch of type 31s and squeezing out more type 26s from the programme would be very sensible, whilst those programmes are running.
Yeah. I’m sure we have been doing that kind of special pleading for years. It appears not to be so successful this time – SACEUR is insisting on more boots on the ground, no more Brit flannel.
I can imagine him saying, Sorry, I can’t use your aircraft carriers in my ground defence plan. Your nukes are not relevant in the opening stages of any Russian offensive, if we ever get to that point, the US will be the main NATO responder.
And what financial value would you put on being on the receiving end of the US air bridge versus, say, the air bridge to Germany? I don’t think that would be a very credible one to put to the General, likely to be shot down in flames!
And actually this is where we need to be very very clear.. and say no sorry.. if you want 6 brigades then we do as France has always done and removed our strategic assets from NATO control.
In the end a European Nuclear deterrent under NATO and 2 carriers is far far more important that an extra deployable brigade or two.. UK needs to learn when to say “ in the nicest possible way fuck off”… just as the French do all the time..
Further splitting NATO? There is one crack along Eu-US line, let’s chip another off the block? The UK this time? This comment sounded more like an average American Trump voter, than a concerned British citizen.
‘Them pesky freeloaders! Them we need to get rid of. What did the Romans ever gave us, anyway…!?’
No it’s about the EU actually accepting that sometimes you need to give and take and that actually they can no longer simply use NATO as a reason to ignore the what the Uk puts into Europes defence.. we are always cutting ourselves up about how little we matter but the simple fact is we are the only European nation that contributes to the NATO nuclear deterrent..and that contribution costs us a fortune. So when you get EU nations trying to slap on fishing treaty rights to the Uk joining any EU defensive alliance it time the UK started to be very clear what it gives and what it could remove…you may or may not be aware but France has alway been very clear its nuclear deterrent it NOT part of its NATO commitment..which is a totally different stance than the UKs has always been.
Simply put although the US government are geostrategically incapable of making good robust long term decisions they have one thing right.i nation state should only be make decisions that are in its direct national interests, what the MAGA administration Miss is that sometimes you can have enlightened self interest where there is more than one winner.. but if the US and EU play hard then the Uk must play its strengths very hard as well.
If mainland Europe falls to Russia, all the AA and ASW in the world isn’t going to help any, therefore we need a fully functional Army. If you ask me we would struggle to field 1 fully functional Brigade let alone 6. We just cut the number of Troops in Estonia almost in half because we can’t afford to keep them there. We are supposed to provide a Brigade of 3-5k troops but current levels are 900. The most we have had is about 1700.
Absolutely agree Spartan. After all the theoretical waffle, warfare does come down to having enough boots on the ground and sufficient air cover.
The force levels in Cabrit are pretty worrying. We were being pressed by NATO HQ to increase our battle group to a brigade, as Germany is doing in Lithuania. The fact that we have now promised 4 Inf bde as a reinforcement for Estonia I hope the MOD aren’t using as an excuse to run down the numbers on the ground. 900 is a bit pitifully small.
So to be clear the very same Russian Army that cannot take all of Ukraine, you think could take all of Europe,what are you Smoking ?.
My take is that after things come to a halt in Ukraine the Russians will continue to regroup and then attack one of the smaller Baltic nations. So it won’t be the same Russian Army but a bigger, better equipped one going after a smaller target with the aim of seeing how NATO reacts.
Russia is not going to take mainland Europe, it would be incapable of taking and holding the larger eastern and Central European nations like Poland or Germany.
The danger is its polical warfare operations that seem to be successfully spilling the west, allowing it and china to reduce the overall power and influence of the west. It’s also a risk around destabilising the smaller and more isolated Eastern European flank Nations that have large polulations of ethnic Russians of populations sympathetic to Russia. That increases the risk of direct NATO Russia conflict that either holds of further risk of NATO shattering or a misstep and nuclear war.
If Russia were to invade mainland Europe, we would need to put someone in France to defend the UK from long distance weapons that exist these days.
The English Channel is not a moat that can protect us, when you can launch from Paris and hit London we are vulnerable in many more ways than we first think, bit like South Korea being in range of North Korea.
I doubt they would cross the Channel, but I would expect to be tested initially, then isolated with our maritime supply chains and undersea infrastructure cut.
That’s before you think about sleeper cells, sabotage and predeployment of drone weapons.
Russia doesn’t have a hope in hell of invading mainland Europe!
They’re struggling now with Ukraine. The most they’d manage would be the Baltics. There’s no way they’d manage to take and hold the Baltics, then invade Poland, then Germany and into France.