Britain’s armed forces are set for a significant transformation to address the mounting challenges posed by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
This major review, led by Lord Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary and NATO chief, aims to bolster the UK’s defence capabilities and reverse years of military cutbacks.
Lord Robertson, brought back into frontline military policy by Sir Keir Starmer, discussed the critical need for the UK and NATO to confront these four nations, describing them as a “deadly quartet”. He stressed the importance of this strategic review in preparing Britain to deal with these emerging threats effectively.
The review is expected to be completed early next year. Defence Secretary John Healey has highlighted this initiative as the beginning of a “new era for Britain” and a “new era for defence.” The review aims to rebuild the “hollowed out” armed forces, addressing the significant reduction in troop numbers and enhancing military readiness.
One of the key objectives, according to reports, is to support Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia while strengthening defences against the other three nations that pose a threat to European stability.
In addition to military enhancements, the review will also focus on improving the welfare of troops. An independent commissioner will be appointed to advocate for their needs, and increased defence spending is expected to boost the economy, particularly in northern regions. The government also plans to assert a stronger leadership role within NATO, ensuring the alliance remains robust against current and future threats.
Lord Robertson pointed out that recognising China as a significant challenge marks a notable shift in NATO’s strategy. He referenced the recent NATO summit, which underscored the necessity of taking China’s ambitions seriously. “The NATO summit last week made it perfectly clear that the challenge of China was something that had to be taken very, very seriously,” he noted.
I’m proposing some questions that need to be answered here, because to be meaningful – the questions are the important thing first the defence review to get right. Answer the wrong question and get the wrong answer!
1. How do you meaningfully grow mass in the armed forces quickly? I said it before Ukraine and Ukraine has proved it – mass is vital for endurance at every level. We can’t assume that we can win quickly.
2. How do you build regular (ie full time, full career) career structures that suit modern people? My own experience here demonstrates that there is still an in built systemic assumption that the service person is the sole bread winner and that their family will move with them. This just doesn’t stand up to the modern reality – families NEED two incomes in most cases and it isn’t fair to ask a spouse to abandon a career for the good of your service.
3. How do we build the industrial capacity to grow quickly? The last time we manufactured a Rifle from scratch in the U.K. was the 1980s. Do we have a domestic supply chain for combat uniforms (IR dye, cloth manufacturing etc etc), our boots are made in Czechia etc.
4. Fundamental Question. HOW do we want to fight? For too long our military strategy had been based on ‘threat’. To me that is reactive and back footed (I don’t think the British military mind set is by the way). We should seek to dominate the battlefield in our way and build capability to do that – fight your own battle and dictate the terms. We need to respond to and be cognisant of the likely threat, because things don’t always go your way – but those need to be in your ‘what ifs’ list. If we can answer that question, the force structure becomes perhaps different – ask a better question, get a better answer.
There are others, no doubt – just my starter for 10
But Steve, we moved away from unit rebasing years ago except for a few small examples (RGR swapping etc), but the career structures for officers and SNCOs still requires individuals to move. And all three services suffer the same issue, even the RN where ‘home-porting’ is a thing suffer from it.
In my own marriage we were on our 4th quarter in 5 years when I left; the units I served with never moved in that time – just us.
Eh, depends where you are. Brigades with a Cyprus Garrison or Guards Unit will still re-base their units frequently to accommodate the rotations, which, for the infantry, represents a large % of the force.
The “Arms Plot” stopped along time ago – with the exception of a handful of infantry battalions that rotate through Cyprus
As to your point 4…. The starting point does have to be the threat you expect to need to beat in future (not the last war). You then work out what you need to fight the threat in the way you want to fight looking to make sure you have looked at variations in threat to find a solution that is flexible and make any realistic and acceptable compromises for affordability constraints.
If you first look purely at how you want to fight irrespective of the threat you expect to face you will likely spend huge amounts of money on a force that is not suitable for any war… for eg, if you decide that the way forwards is to put an all infantry force of soldiers in pink tutus and have them pirouette across the battlefield ready to open fire with hand guns when the enemy are rolling around on the floor laughing you may find you have a problem if the adversary proves to be dour, professional and armed with land mines and machine guns in prepared positions…
Don’t think I articulated that point very well.
I’m coming at this from the point of how do we want to fight, cognisant of the threat we are likely to face. I feel like previous reviews have looked more at how we react to the threat (ie how do we defend ourselves) rather than how we win in the environment we are likely to operate in.
So, for example, we are likely to operate in an environment where there is a high level of EW capability amongst our advisory. Do we want to operate or have the ability to go analogue? Is that how we train to operate? – that’s an extreme idea, but my point is – structure the force around how you want to dictate the conventional battle (which now includes cyber for example.
Let’s give a great example from the recent past. Army tries to structure itself around highly mobile, medium armour force, because it believes that it needs to be able to do rapid out of area deployments and it believes it’s threat is likely to be asymmetric and not heavy armour. At the same time, the RN is divesting itself of the ability to affect theatre entry in favour of carrier strike. This means that the Army is now dependent on a SEAPOD that is secure to actually fulfil the role for which it has just structured itself. We haven’t got a joined up CONEMP across defence.
Hi BobA,
Good points there. I thought point 2. was a particuarly interesting point with regards to retention and to be honest it had never occurred to me. My back relevant ground is 10+ as a defence analyst (I’m disabled so couldn’t join up).
You also talk about the ‘modern people’ joining the services. That is a good way of putting each generation rightly has different outlooks and expectations in part because the older generations want some thing better for the children and grandchildren! Then we wonder why we don’t understand the youngsters! So step one for recruiters – understand the people you want to recruit and compete for their loyalty. Show loyalty by looking after them and their families and retention will be much easier – the private sector doesn’t understand the concept as I, and others in my family have found out in the past – so should be an easy win for the services.
The other point I found interesting was point point 4. You seemed to suggest that basing our defence on threat is flawed. It is to a point but it makes far more sense rather than letting politicians and the Treasury simply set a budget on wishful thinking and wilfully optimistic assumptions. Indeed, I would say the ‘threat’ is what has finally forced politicians still very reluctant hands into the Treasury’s pockets…
I would support your point about seeking to dominate the battlespace, but I would suggest that understanding your enemy’s capabilities and political mindset are important factors when designing your force structure (along geography and a whole lot of other variables). I see threat as the flip side of the coin, but it is fair to say that the ability to dominate is rarely talked about explicitly outside of military circles – probably because the bean counters would see it as the military looking for a blank cheque.
Interesting points.
Cheers CR
I know four people that currently serve and to grow the mass of our armed forces you need to address retention because all of our forces are haemorrhaging people.
Recruitment is a shambles but retention is the key to an uplift in numbers,
Therefore the first commitment in this review must be to address pay, accommodation and to relieve the pressure on those that are constantly deployed.
There are still too many people in the forces that are not fit for active duty and that must also be addressed to relieve the burden on those that do.
Realistically, an extra 10,000 personnel spread across all of the forces would be also help in this regard and allow for some modest capability growth.
In my simple mind people first and more/new equipment second.
Are there many who are constantly deployed? With the demise of Ops TELIC and HERRICK many years ago, I thought deployments were less frequent and smaller in scale.
Unfortunately, there is very little let up because as personnel numbers have plummeted from 2010 and those major Ops have ceased we have inherited new commitments in the European theatre alongside the reemergence of existing ones.
The tempo on those that remain is unsustainable at the present and needs to be addressed by either reducing commitments, which is unrealistic or we need more people.
The tempo of current activity in the army and whether it is sustainable is best answered by Dern!
My knowledge of the Army is far more limited than Dern’s that’s for sure. But from what I hear first hand from RN, RM and RAF personnel it is has been quite unrelenting for a considerable period. I wouldn’t imagine it is much different for elements of the Army.
Haha cheers Graham, but my view of tempo of operations is pretty narrow, and I’ve spend much of the last decade in a corner that has a very high tempo of deployments and operations so, I’m probably skewed in my view now. I was having a drink with someone the other day who’d posted into my unit because we where very busy and thought he’d deploy, but because he applied for the wrong job within the battalion he’s effectively never going to deploy. So even within units individual experiences may vary.
I think armour is also pretty busy from what I hear?
Depends on where in the army you are. In certain corners the deployments are constant, and almost roll into each other. Other areas not so much.
Thanks. Are these deployments 6-month tours or shortish exercises? I guess a mixture of both.
Mixture of both for sure.
A lively post Bob!
To answer point 1)
It depends on what your definition of quickly is and what your constraints are.
The most obvious way to quickly grow the armed forces (and my answer is going to be army centric here) is to call up the Army Reserve. That’s a one time boost of about 30,000 troops. Follow that up with making sure the Regular Reserve is exercised and useable to create an extra growth margin at short notice for a limited amount of time.
A peace time expansion (unless you introduce conscription which brings it’s own host of issues) will by neccesity be slow, the Army has 6 Army Training Regiments (ATR 1 and 2 in Pirbright ATR(G), ATR(W) and two Infantry Training Regiments at Catterick), each maxes out at about 500 recruits, though no ATR will be training 500 at any one time (Typically companies will rotate between training, rest, and prep cycles). So the obvious option is to turn the training crank to maximum which means about 3,000 new trainee’s every 4ish months (add in lag for trade training and ITR’s though).
Then we get to the idea of sustained high intensity conflict (noting that in any NATO scenario we shouldn’t realistically be in a mass deficit, unless fighting China). Then the issue becomes balancing troops needed at the front with training at home. Op Interflex has recently crossed the 42,000 line for Ukraine, so an additional 20,000 on top of the 12,000 that the ITR’s can turn out is a reasonable, maybe a bit more as you could imagine that 11 SFA might drop it’s overseas commitments and 19L might be entirely committed as a training formation, but then you really start to run into problems with training estate (queue the Army going back to evicting people out of villages so it can train ala Imber)
A few points on 3);
We probably will never build a rifle from scratch in the UK again, what we might do however is build one under licensce. Talk to HK, get permission to crank out 416’s in a UK factory and roll on with that. (To nitpick though, I think AI is a UK company and they’ve developed new rifles as recently as 2010). Don’t know about the rest of the army, but my uniform is made by a company in Brooklyn. One set of webbing I have is made by a company in Brecon, the other by one in Aldershot, but I doubt either of them can scale effectively to provide 40,000 belt kits a year. Ultimately I think those are going to be less worrysome pinch points though than eg NVG’s, Thermals, Drones, ATGM’s, kevlar liners, plates, Vehicles etc. Downgrading from a high end uniform to walking trousers and a green t-shirt won’t hurt your preformance as much as not being able to see at night (speaking from experience).
That’s a really good set of 4 broad principles..really specifically, mass and the assumption of winning quickly..the west has been obsessed with the quick for a very long time, but the evidence is wars are rarely quick…and the west is very good at losing long wars even against very weak enemies…just look at Afghanistan and before that Vietnam. The is now particularly important as we have a set of peer enemies who’s whole concept is the “long war” with a topping of massive suffering. China specifically has said if it goes to war with the west it will drag the west into years of suffering, because it knows it cannot win a short sharp conflict with the west.
really good point on the holistic nature of recruitment and retention and the need.to look at the whole family…the bread winner concept is dead and people make decisions on a whole family need..we have the problem in the NHS and recruitment into areas of rural deprivation…yes the one job pays well..but if the partner cannot get a good job or the children an education and future, then you will not recruit to that role.
Manufacturing is massive..our main enemy ( china ) has been playing a Mercantile strategy for years..based around a plan of denuding the west of its manufacturing base and moving it all to china…china now has over 50 of the worlds shipbuilding capacity..most of the rest is in India…infact china has 260 times more shipbuilding capacity than the U.S…..how the hell do you win that war of attrition.
true but I think our enemies are fighting on battlefields we don’t even acknowledge…china believes in political warfare above everything else..if you destroy your opponents political will to fight all their armies are irrelevant…china is constantly attacking our political will…they attack our politicians, create division and mistrust…look at the US..no republican would ever support the decision of a democrat president and no democrat would ever support the decision of a republican president….this will potentially destroy the. US ability to fight a long war as it would fall into political instability.
Lets face it, 2.5% is not enough. There’s no way we can rebuild capability by just adding 0.46% of GDP to the defence budget. From hardware to manpower to accommodation, it all needs to be increased.
The BBC say the SDR will look at gaps in capability. That depends on where we are to deploy. Unlike any other NATO nation (apart from France), the UK has historic global commitments as well as European and home defence. If we are to honour those commitments, the government needs to put money up.
It’s a straightforward set of questions Labour needs to answer.
Hi Ex-RoyalMarine,
Yup I agree with your main point – increasing by0.46% of GDP isn’t enough. It would solve quite a few short term issues mind – assuming MoD doesn’t pee it up the wall…
I think this will turn out to be a stepping stone to 3% or even 4%. Why?
Well the BBC article took a very global view of the situation, highlighting that NATO saw China as a significant threat. With Lord Robertson a former NATO general secretary and a former US Presidenial special advisor Fiona Hill I think the global context will not be completely overlooked. The messaging is becoming increasingly loud and I think is starting to get through.
Fiona Hill is also an interesting choice being a British-American foreign affairs specialist at the National Security Council. Her focus was Europe and Russia, which would be inline with a NATO first policy, but NATO is starting to look globally ranking China as a major threat. As such there three nations in NATO which are well placed to deliver that global capability, the US, UK and France. Given Fiona Hill’s US political background I suspect America’s frustration at a lack of support globally from her allies will not be overlooked, I certainly not anyway as I believe the UK, as an island nation needs, to be able to watch over our trade routes – “We’re going to need a bigger navy” – by yesterday if we want to deter… Oops.
Cheers CR
“I think this will turn out to be a stepping stone to 3% or even 4%.”
I certainly hope so. With the strategic review not set to complete until early next year one could certainly make a case for an immediate announcement of an increase to 2.5% with potential for further increases after the review.
There is plenty of stuff right now that could use 0.46% extra funding over the 8 or 9 months until the review is over that it seems to me doesn’t need to wait for a strategic review. Stuff like improving forces housing, rebuilding stockpiles of munitions for stuff that it is clear is not going out of service after the review, and making a start on improving pay & other conditions to try and get the recruitment pipeline looking more healthy.
That alone could soak up the extra funding we would get from an immediate increase to 2.5% and then when the strategic review is out and the bigger picture revealed at least we wouldn’t be starting the “rebuilding of forces” from quite as far behind as we probably will be due to Labour’s seeming unwillingness to take any immediate steady-the-ship action.
they have already said defence spending wont go up untill economy recovers more. there will be no quick jump on spending.
However sorting out the wastage of billions on procurement would free up enough for good start
Hi Julian,
Quick back of fag packet (cigarette packet for our US friends) calculation suggests that increasing Defence spending by 0.46% of GDP in today’s money amounts to about £12billion (my sum – 0.46 / 2.04 x £57b, so yeh very rough). Can’t see them doing that in one go.
To be honest I don’t think the MoD could swallow that amount of extra money in a single year, they just couldn’t get the contracts out fast enough.
I would be surprised if the review suggested spending more than 2.5%. My thinking was that the threat environment is going to continue to deteriorate which will force the issue, perhaps within this parliament. Why do I think that? Well the West still isn’t doing enough to deter aggression, so our adversaries are going to continue pushing until either someone goes too far or they see us stepping up in a serious manner. If NATO pulled a Poland and all moved towards 4% I think the message would be loud and clear, but we won’t all move at the same time so I think we will end up spending more for the same ‘shock’ effect. Ho hum…
Cheers CR
Agree. I’m liking what I’m hearing here as too Euro centric was my greatest fear, due to the endless rhetoric that Healey came out with in opposition.
Maybe they’ve grown up now they are in power.
I hope to be spectacularly wrong with my fears.
Hi Daniele,
I shared your concerns initially but on reflection I remembered reading sometime ago that there is very little governments can actually change once they get into power because 98% (ish) of the budget is pretty much nailed down, some of it in law. Change takes time if you want to avoid shocking the state system which risks having real impacts on real people – voters.
With regards to foreign affairs and defence there is even less room for manoeuvre because of all of the treaties, agreements and norms in international relationships on top of the budget constraints.
The carriers are pretty safe, for example, as I bet the USMC would love to get back onboard and the USN certainly appreciates an extra allied big deck or two. So having committed significant sums developing the capability they are not going to chuck them away or park them out of site somewhere. If you’ve got them, might as well use them and get something back for the investment and countries like Japan and Australia certainly appreciate seeing a Brit carrier from time to time. AS are now in the process of accession to the CPTPP trade group and we will be the only non-Pacific Rim country in the group, I suspect we will need to ‘show our faces’ form time to time, especially as most of the countries in the group are nervous about China.
OK so that’s sort of my outward looking reasoning for thinking things won’t change too much.
What about Labour? Well there is nothing in ‘law’ stopping an incoming government doing something drastic and or stupid we’ve had that lesson stuffed under our noses in specular fashion recently… However, this government has got into power on the back of some pretty tough internal disciplinary actions and a lot of self imposed limits, mostly financial related, but I do not see them wanting to pee anyone off. This would be especially true of the US, but also Japan and Australia as well. Tempest and AUKUS aren’t just defence agreements they are investment agreements and Australia has already committed to putting a few A$100m into UK facilities in the north of England. So whilst Labour have dropped the ‘Leveling Up’ phrase I can’t see them pulling the plug on billions being invested in the defence industry, much of well away from the rich Southeast and coming from aboard as well!
So I think our ‘Global Britain’ strategy will get quietly dropped, but it will continue in practice because we never stopped being a global nation – we’re an island trading nation and always have been. (I read somewhere, in a mining museum in Cornwall I think, that Cornish copper has been found in ancient artifacts pre-dating the Romans as far away as the middle east and Asia!)
Cheers CR
PS. Another chapter to the book 🙂
an interesting informative read CR !
Thanks klonkie,
Cheers CR
We’ve got to give the new government a chance. They’ve taken over a massive shitshow from the Tories and it will take Labour 2 terms of government to turn it around. First term slow progressive improvements second term should be when we take off as a country and start becoming the great nation we all know we can be.
Is NATO really looking at ranking China as a serious threat to itself? So will NATO expand their area of concern beyond the Euro-Atlantic region? Will NATO expect friendly countries in the Far East to join?
Hi Graham,
Good questions, mate, and whilst I do not know the answers to those questions I believe they are being seriously asked within NATO.
Having said that NATO was called into action in Afghanistan after 9/11 which is well beyond the Euro-Atlantic region, however, the attack occurred well within the NATO region. SO I would suggest that that limitation has already been blurred…
As for friendly countries in the Far East I believe Australia is already an associate country to NATO. It is not covered by the full treaty obligations but given its alliance with the US I suspect they would be involved from the get go. Also, Japan and South Korea as they have similar alliances with the US.
NATO sets out very clearly defined responsibilities equally on all allies which gives it it’s strength – provided everyone sticks to the rules – as well as ensuring there is little room for doubt. However, the network of alliances in the Far East may not be so clear.
Then there is the unpredictability of the countries coalescing into a loose axis, Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Venezuela also gets mentioned in this list from time to time. All of those countries are either involved in a shooting war or are engaged in ‘grey area’ conflict with their neighbours. Russia’s war in Ukraine, China throwing its weight around inside the ‘nine dashed line’, Iran’s proxy war against Israel, North Korea firing off ballistic missiles over Japan every now and then, and finally Venezuela’s aggression toward Guyana which has led to responses from the UK and US…
Take yer pick! We live in interesting times…
Cheers CR
Thanks mate. It will be interesting to see in the upcoming Defence review if there is any focus on the prospect of military operations outside the classic NATO area, especially in Africa and the Asia-Pacific region.
South Korea, Japan and Australia are all alert and woken up to the threat from China. The Phillipines and Singapore are also investing in defence. Indonesia is sitting on the fence and will likely remain neutral.
New Zealand is a disgrace. Sitting in supposed splendid isolation but in reality is ripe for the picking should China be able to get military forces there they could easily overrun New Zealand.
Agreed Mr Bell,
My comment about alliances in the Far East was meant to highlight that there isn’t, as yet, a NATO of the Far East rather there is a network of alliances most notably, but exclusively, between countries affected by the nine dash line and the US.
I suspect that if one country was attacked by China then others would get involved in someway in support of the US, but given likely variations in the various alliance treaties it is unlikely that the same level of clarity exists for these countries as there is for NATO members.
I see this as a weakness both for the countries defensive posture but also in the deterrent value of these collective alliances. Uncertainty can be dangerous…
Cheers CR
China most definitely is the number one threat. They are a threat to all their neighbours and president Xi and Mad Vlad the Impaler want to refashion the world into something much more bending of the knee towards them.
China is the number one threat to their region and to susceptible Third World nations, especially in Africa. They have the potential to trouble us in the West economically in so many areas, to hack on a grand scale and to commit industrial and non-industrial espionage. I am less convinced that they pose a major military threat to the NATO area.
I hope there isn’t a plan to delay or cut Tempest to fund todays shortcomings. Healey is a name with history!
Completely agree, we are in a Cold War with china, Iran, North Korea and Russia..we know what was needed last time ( 5-6%)…this time I would say the threat is even greater and more global in nature.
A review that needs to be conducted by the MoD without Treasury interference.
Sadly, that is not going to happen. However, unlike previous reviews this one can’t ignore the growing threats, which are not showing any signs of reducing. Luckily, that will ensure a more realistic outcome with tangible improvements for all services. Where in the past, the opportunity for cuts will still be there but due to the worsening international pressures should be less damaging.
If there was a pivot to just Europenan and UK defence, I’d be very concerned about the carriers being cut and the RN going back to a sole GIUK gap role. However, with the AUKUS and Pacific commitments and the fact that the carriers were a Labour creation, it should stop any such ideas.
I don’t believe the RN ever had a sole GIUK gap role. Why do you think that? They have alwyas had a global role/global tasking.
In the past the RN has had a NATO commitment to cover the security of the Eastern Atlantic and the English Channel. The RN has a role to carry the nation’s independent nuclear deterrent. They have provided a presence in the Falklands and wider South Atlantic. They have deployed carrier task groups to the Far East. They have conducted anti-piracy operations in and around the Red Sea and anti-drugs operations in the Caribbean. They have led on Services Protected/Assisted Evacuations of non-combatants. I have missed out loads.
Rebuilding mass across the board.
Current programme cost overruns.
Within 2%GDP
Sounds like trying to hammer the square peg into the round hole to me…
What’s the plan then, a raft of new PPFI’s to kick spending down the road, second hand kit off Uncle Sam?
I can’t see any other way of building mass quickly within the cost constraints.
The fact that the scope is focus is outside as well as inside Europe, I am quietly optimistic
They’re already promising too much. It’s clear.
I don’t think they are promising too much. What examples do you have?
Western governments in general aren’t going to be able to deal effectively with China because they still think they can either cooperate with or confront the Chinese depending on the issue, and at their own choosing- as if China gets no say in the matter. China meanwhile will be demanding quid pro quos to further its own perceived interests.
I will probably be shot down for my comment but here goes
The UK is an island and as such we have as of today a smallish army
Please dont shout me down as my dad served in the DCLI from 1936 to 1953 and would no doubt knock my block off with what i am going to suggest
Why not concentrate on the RAF and RN and let mainland Europe concentrate on the ground forces
As people say we dont have a lot of cash so concentrate on what is needed by building up the Navy and beefing up the air force
OK waiting on incoming flack
Replied on other thread.
Barry, you seem to forget that we are in NATO and as a major country with a relatively large defence budget we need to make meaningful contributions to the defence of continental Europe (and the Atlantic). That includes an armoured division as a minimum. Also, our army is regularly deployed on expeditionary operations by their political masters.
We will never have the numbers for a large army so focusing on something we have had strength in for centuries makes sense, the Royal Navy. We have more cash than most, what we seem to lack is the capacity to put it to good use and endless studies and reports will not make a difference while someone is being paid to make endless studies and reports, we just need to hurry up and do what is needed.
We have not had a large army since the height of the Cold War, but we need a right-sized army and 73,000 is not it. We should not just build up the RN solely because previous governments progressively cut the army back to 73,000 solely for budgetary savings.
The current SDSR is not just one of a series of endless studies and reports. A new Government, particularly of a different political persuasion needs to do this. I hope that some small fixes can be done whilst the Review is ongoing.
With your ‘handle’ I guess you are American? No senior military leader cuts manpower count or platform numbers – that is all down to the politicians in collusion with the Treasury.
Senior military leaders then try to put a brave face on such politically-driven cuts and point in desperation to a small amount of high quality equipment on the order books, plus the good standard of our force’s training, our combat experience and versatilty.
It shocks me that the quality of military housing is still an issue. I thought that Annington Homes, a commercial company, who bought all married quarters (for well below market price) in 1996 had undertaken to bring them up to a good standard. Instead MoD still pays for modernisation of houses they no longer own!!I
[Wiki: “In 1996, the MoD sold all its housing for military personnel and their families, 57,400 properties, to Annington Homes for £1.67bn as part of a broader process of privatisation of state assets, making Annington the largest owner of residential property in England and Wales]. Unlike American service personnel, British occupiers pay rent, council tax and all utility bills as a civilian would – and have done since 1972. Moreover, Annington Homes boasts about their core task with these properties being to majorly upgrade certain properties that are now in areas the MoD no longer reside and sell them to civilians. You could not make it up.
Robertson is behind a periodic Defence Review rather than an investigation. It covers everything not just housing.
I think there is less inter-service rivalry in competing for funds than you might imagine. Not sure what your point is about the carriers and inter-service rivalry? What compromises were made? It is said that the army surrendered £5bn of FRES money to the Navy to help fund the carrier/F-35B programme.
Firstly, outside of the normal Defence Box, I would say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) should also have a part in this review. As their past history of ineptitude and aloofness has led to a number of conflicts. In particular the Falklands War, but also near conflicts in Honduras and Guiana. There needs to be a stronger will to lead from the Secretary of State (SOS) to make sure the Civil Servants take matters seriously and respect the treaties that we must uphold. As this inevitably leads to where our military goes, but also counter the emerging threats, such as Venezuela.
Secondly, Starmer has said that he wants to build on the Sovereign capability. Which is all well and good and I applaud. But a significantly chunk of our defence manufacturing capability has been broken up and sold off to foreign interests that have moved it off-shore. Plus we have lost the manufacturing capability in some areas relying on sub-contracting the work to other countries. So do we bite the bullet and reinvigorate these missing capabilities, but also Nationalise those that have ben sold to foreign companies? If we did, then the longer term issues would be at the next Government may see things differently and sell it off again. So perhaps their needs to be a new law that protects strategic manufacturing and production? Otherwise there will be this continual circle.
I am hoping that the Government will fully recognize at how hollow the UK’s military has become. But actually do something about it, rather than papering over the cracks and hiding it by political spin. There’s only so much window dressing can hide, as at some point you will need to use it.
Interesting that Ben Wallace thought there was significant hollowing out in his years as a young army officer. Hollowing out is certainly a thing since the mid-90s, and has never stopped.
I agree about reviving British Defence Industry. There always was an ethos that we would not buy foreign-made warships. That never happened with other equipment.
Sounds great in principle, but they need to understand that rebuilding the armed forces means increasing numbers in virtually everything.
The Ukraine War has shown that mass counts, and you cannot have ultra-high tech equipment in small numbers as assets are still lost and need to be replaced.
We have a technological edge against the likes of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, but we lack mass. We need to build mass back up, not just in equipment but in personnel.
We need to go back to an army of approx. 100,000, a navy of 25+ frigates and destroyers, and 10+ fleet submarines, and an air force of 200+ combat fast jets.
We need more artillery, which has been king in this war, and we need high quantities of ammunition to sustain high-intensity combat for months, which requires rebuilding the industrial base to ensure high enough quantities can be produced, and to maintain those production rates. No more famine or feast; we need constant and sustained higher production levels.
All of this requires more funding. It will take more than 2.5%. The increase to 2.5% might just get the munitions stores back into shape but won’t do anything to increase mass in all three armed forces. This needs significant funding, probably 3-4% of GDP.
In short: effective defence can’t be done on the cheap.
I agree with every word.
Some, especially US senior officers, think we failed in Iraq and in Afghanistan – and that is when MoD was putting considerable effort into generating UORs for Special-To-Theatre kit, and HMT picked up the tab. At that time, much core equipment was not upgraded or replaced.
So it is not a surprise that our core equipment now, especially the army’s, is in poor shape.
During the years of cutbacks, where was the Parliamentary Opposition? Why were they quiet?
We cannot go backwards. There is no more room for any more cutbacks. We must face the fact that our Armed Forces fighting ability is barely credible. The only way to reverse this is by increasing Defence spending. But going to 2.5% is basically going to do not much more than scratch the surface. We really need to be radical and go to 4% of GDP if we really are going to be able to do the job of defending the UK and protecting our interests overseas continuously and effectively.
In the case of the Royal Navy, 95% of our trade comes by the sea. We rely on the RN to safeguard this trade and therefore our economic security and living standards. The reality is that we are a part time ‘Blue Water Navy’. We do not have enough Ships or Submarines to be in all of the right places, all of the time, to provide deterrence and reassurance. AUKUS though, is a fantastic beginning, the seeds of which will eventually bring rich security and economic rewards. We must aim to have a much stronger and permanent presence in the South China Sea, Middle East, Med, the Baltic, North Sea, Greenland/Iceland Gap, and not just on the surface, but below the waves as well, to send a message to China, North Korea, Iran, its proxies and Russia that they cannot threaten, bully or intimidate others, that they must recognise the international rules based order. Next Year, HMS Prince of Wales is deploying through the Med, Red Sea, Arabian Gulf, Indian Ocean and South China Sea, taking with her 24 UK F35B Lightnings and 14 Merlins. This is a powerful statement but we need to be able to make this statement more often to maximise the deterrent effect. We need to return to being a Blue Water Navy once again. Currently though, that is very difficult to achieve based on the lack of, and the availability of escorts and RFA’s, especially in the case of the RFA’s. Ships are laid up in Birkenhead and One of them, RFA Fort Victoria, does not have the people available to put a crew onboard. FSS Ships are also coming down the track with their construction about to start. Their crews need to be recruited now so that they can go through all the necessary training and be ready to step onboard.. But we cannot do anything if we don’t first start looking after our people, who are disillusioned, with many packing up and going home. Sorting out recruitment, conditions, housing etc must be the first, most urgent priority.
So, here we are again… a new Strategic Defence Review, and a certain George Robertson is part of the team..
Here is the 1998 Defence Review, presided over by Mr Robertson himself, the Defence Secretary at the time.
There is much to be done. We have a long way to go.
https://fissilematerials.org/library/mod98.pdf
Good Evening!
Rebuilding our forces would be the sensible thing to do!
I do not know why it is not possible for all major parties to agree a stable strong Defence policy without all this chop and change!
Surely as we can all see there has been a complete lack of seriousness on the part of the Conservatives after Russia invaded Ukraine. Our forces are so weak it’s embarrassing !
Time now to adjust and rebuild without delay!
Many times on this site over years we have raised these issues but to seemingly no avail.
Of course the British public should be advised how serious the situation is so that the necessary tax rises to accommodate all increases are accepted and tolerated.
Nick