In a recent Defence Committee meeting, concerns about the British military’s capacity for sustained operations were raised.
Witnesses examined included Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Defence; David Williams CB, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence; Tom Wipperman, Strategic Finance Director; and Lieutenant General Sir Rob Magowan KCB CBE, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Capability).
The dialogue began with Emma Lewell-Buck MP, questioning the rejection of over 125,000 Army applicants due to a reported lack of vacancies. The Secretary of State for Defence, Grant Shapps, responded that he was unaware of the specific FOI mentioned but acknowledged systemic issues in recruitment practices needing urgent attention.
The conversation then moved to the UK’s military readiness, with Lieutenant General Sir Rob Magowan asserting the nation’s preparedness for immediate conflict but recognising limitations in sustained engagement capabilities.
“We are ready for war, and I fundamentally believe that. We have very high readiness forces…who can go out of the door tonight,” Magowan stated.
However, when Mr Francois probed about the endurance of the UK’s military forces, Magowan conceded, “Absolutely,” agreeing that the military could face significant challenges in a prolonged conflict with a major power like Russia.
“We could not fight an enduring war for more than a couple of months…because we do not have the ammunition or the reserves of equipment to do it. That’s true, isn’t it?” Francois pressed, to which Magowan replied, “True”.
Don’t worry….. Robert Blay will be along in a bit…. He’ll soon put a good spin on things.
The Astutes will sort things out probably.
Apart from the last two firings of our nuclear deterrent threatened the submarine more than anyone else. The bone heads can’t even get it into their heads we need to find the bug, fix it and then do a couple of successful firings to prove the point
Astutes don’t carry nuclear weapons it’s the Vanguard’s. It only takes one missile to fire properly with it’s 8 nuclear warheads it’s still a massive deterrent. The last two one of which was years ago were actually test missiles no warheads these things cost millions the you don’t go firing them willy nilly the miss fire could be caused by anything from dirty fuel to loose wire so even firing one successful firing doesn’t prove anything. If the Vanguard has it’s full complement of missiles 16 that equates to 128 warheads it is one big deterrent even with this couple of miss fires, the test missiles could have been supplied by the US so the fault could be mishandling by them.
Two totally different incidence. And two different missiles.
Indeed, and a long time apart, but frankly if you tell me you can nuke me and the last two firings of your missiles landed a few feet from the launch platform without achieving anything I am really hardly likely to take you seriously even if every other missile you possess might actually work, I am just not going to believe it. TO be a deterrent it actually needs to be believable. Same as the armed forces need to be of a size where it is believable they could defend us if needed, two aircraft carriers with room for what 80 planes (vs the 3 with room for 80 we used to have) but equipped with 10 are hardly going to be a threat. 100 tanks of which 40 or 50 might actually be ready for use, no landing ships to get them anywhere, no eyes in the sky for the airforce, and not enough soldiers to fill a second division football stadium isnt going to be much use however good they are. Russia lost more than we possess last week – it apparently has a smaller economy and is still carrying on a war with losses far exceeding our total armed forces and apparently we cant afford more probably because we have diversity managers in schools, hospitals full of more diversity managers, houses of parliament hell bent on taking bribes and expenses, councils full of people paid 10 times the average wage for doing nothing and a whole bunch of very very very very poor management taking 90% of the wage bill and wondering why no one else is really bothered about their damned companies.
Like I said previously there have been upto 20+ successful firings of the Trident missile since the first Royal Navy failure which was of the older Trident II D5 missile, 18 or so have been of the new Missile which started coming online in 2021. Just because the failure was again on a Royal Navy submarine doesnt change the efficacy of the whole system. The efficacy is still in the mid-90th precentile not Zero. Russian missiles are in the 50th Percentile, so the Chinese JL-2 would be around the same margin. But Dave I am sure Mr Putin doesnt see it that way, a missile system he cannot find with a CEP of less than 100m (Thats the accuracy), with a potential warhead load of 14 warheads per missile with a 90% success rate. In terms of the state of the Armed forces lets incease the budget for defence by a 100% which would mean increasing taxes by around 6% I’m sure the British Public would welcome that. Not too mention the Armed forces cannot recruit enough people to man all the planes, ships, tanks, infantry fighting vehcles we currently have never mind doubling them.
We will never fight Russia on our own, so it’s a pointless argument. Russia can’t defeat Ukraine, so what realistic chance have they against NATO forces. Just look at US capability alone.
Not so pointless. If everyone in NATO is unprepared, then a lot of suffering will come out of such weakness. My country is not very strong either at the moment. We must get ready to sustain a force strong enough to deter any hazardous action from Russia. If Russia has 1 million men ready, we need a European force with high level of readiness of 500 000. This added to local army will render any breakthrough un feasible.
I hope UK and Germany will fix their army. USA is leaving, for Asia. We cannot ask USA to be here all the time. And in fact, do we have to? Yes and no.
While I don’t disagree at all, we need to and are raising our game with ammunition stocks, and the defence industry as a whole is preparing for far greater orders and capacity. But. The threat from Russia is overplayed. They are not close to achieving air superiority over Ukraine. They have lost more warships against a country that doesn’t even really have a Navy. They have activated national mobilisation and lost thousands upon thousands of men, hundreds of thousands of disabled men. All the talk of Russian might and numbers has come pretty much to nothing. They have gained nothing apart from huge losses. Lists of Russia claiming it has 800+ fast jets has come to nothing. They don’t have the tech. They don’t have the training. All they can do is lob artillery rounds. Inaccurately. It’s not about underestimateing the enemy. The evidence is clear for all to see.
Partly correct Robert, but I think your missing the overall strategic point: Putin and his cronies have now embarked on a long-term mission to (in their eyes) re-claim the old Soviet Union and re-populate those countries with Russians again. How the UK and the West counters that in an ENDURING way is the problem.
typo: “you are”
And after Russia’s demonstration to the world of its conventional military capability, Puitins dream will fail before it even really gets started. He knows he can’t match NATO. Not today, and not in 5 years time. As I said to somebody else. I see the biggest threat from Russia, (nuclear weapons aside) Is the cyber and misinformation war coming out of the Kremlin, especially with election interfering. And the backing of proxy groups to turn western voters against our own governments. Just look at the support for Palestine. The west needs to fight tooth and nail to uphold our own democracys.
The threat for me is what will putin do when he’s on the verge of being removed.
I personally believe he will do a Hitler and try and burn everything around him. Which means starting a nuclear war out of spite!
Maybe he’ll be “removed” before he can think about it. It’s amazing the destruction that one mad man and his cohorts can bring upon others. Megalomania!
Again, I think you are partly correct but are in a way underlining how Putin is planning to do it. i.e. undermine western counties with all sorts of misinformation and dirty little secrets/cash to leverage politicians – shocking how much affect already in the U.S.A.. Then the other way he will also do this is by mobilizing Russian industry (a la WWII) and all paid for by sales of resources (oil, gas, nicked grain etc.) to the likes of India, China etc. …shame on them too, whilst the West fails to get its act together.
Good points mate. 👍
Agree.
I’ve got a excellent document to send you mate about the carrier strike/F35 capability road map, and its bang up to date. I just can’t figure out how to share it. It’s an Adobe file. I’ll figure it out. Its a very interesting read.
Cheers pal.
It may well have been comrade Putin’s plan all along, to ‘re-claim`, and then ‘re-populate’ the old soviet union countries, with 100’s of 1000’s of Russians.
The thing is, the West has nothing to counter this threat with, in any way at all, let alone an enduring way.
Everyone in the West is soiling their pants, at the prospect of WW III, and all that it entails. The only way to beat Russia, is for NATO to step up, and take care of the European bully once and for all.
That… is never going to happen! So, this ‘proxy’ war will go on and on for years to come.
…and quite analogous to the “Phoney War” of WWII.
So true! The only question is the battlefield we pick. The trend will not go because Putin will suddenly be nice.
The question really is “is the nation ready for a major war” and all the entails and I think the answer is no…wars are won by military and economic power..but they are lost by the shattering of political and populations will to suffer and fight….our forces may be willing to bleed and are prepared..but is our nation ?
Well, they have raised a million men army, they are able to strike with a short notice ODA loop, the supply correctly their men, they out produce us on artillery tubes, shells, drones, tanks, mortar, missiles and they have the initiative. They have restructured army command and the army is full of veterans soldiers. What could possibly go wrong? Of course with 30 different line of command, they will have to defeat 30 ennemies, this is not easy. No, we must confront them now, gain expérience and face our shortcomings now, so that Russia will no longer be a threat for 20 years. The situation is way too unbalanced, way too volatile. Eastnet Europeans must be reassured. They step up, we establish bases.
The question wasn’t can we do it alone, it was can we sustain a high level deployment, which the answer was a pretty clear no we don’t have the supplies, which i think is no surprise to anyone here.
While I’m not disagreeing with the statement, A NATO conflict with Russia would not look like a Ukraine v Russia conflict. Air superiority, precision munitions, ISTAR capability, First night of war capability with 5th gen assets and cruise missiles and drones would make it a very different kind of conflict. But do we need to be better prepared for a longer draw out conflict. Yes, definitely. I see cyber warefare and the kremlin misinformation machine as greater threat than Russian conventional forces.
Semi agreed. plenty of ISTAR going on in the ukraine war and plenty of cruise missiles used by both sides with very few getting through. NATO is seriously lacking on the drone front, so would need to build them, the last defence review had the UK only having something like 20 drones overall in service.
However the next war won’t be with Russia and won’t be anytime soon (nothing really on the horizon for at least 5-10years) and i suspect lessons will be learnt around what went wrong with the various asssets and they will be fixed.
Just look at falklands and how bad all the UK air defences operated, but that was fixed and lessons learnt. Look at Iraq1 and how terrible the patriot were, but again they were fixed. It seems like miltiary tech is never really tested properly, using an opponent that is being creative to try and beat it and requires a war to sort out the issues.
I read a really interesting article that the US didnt’ really practice logistics working alongside front line forces, all the training was done seperately and clearly ukraine war has shown the importance of logistics and the assicated challanges of protecting it to the front line.
I think we are much further ahead with drones than we think. The UK is supplying thousands of drones to Ukraine,as well as developing the reply high end stuff. Protector foe example. Western ISTAR is streets ahead of anything the Russians have demonstrated. Western kill chain tech has allowed Ukraine to be so effective against Russian warships.
Not so sure on the drone front. If there had been any purchases for the UK military it would have been announced.
The drone strategy posted the other week was an interesting read. I was mainly referring to our industry drones capability, and what we export. 👍
There has been many drone strategies over the last decade and so far no drones delivered. For sure the industrial capability is there currently but won’t be for long if orders don’t arrive.
We should never rely on others for our defence! NATO stocks are shockingly low, and your complacency is as dangerous as Shapps/ Hunt/ Sunak. Take US out of the equation and we’re in trouble – lacking comprehensive GBAD, strategic strike and depth.
Anyway. Back in reality. We have been part of an alliance for 75 years. The US remains and always will remain our closest ally, regardless of who sits in the White House. The relationship goes much deeper than sitting presidents and prime ministers. Every conflict since the end of the Cold War we have been involved in has been part of a coalition. We train every day with our allies. And we are more than able to defend ourselves. People forget, like, really forget the breadth of capabilities and intelligence we have at our disposal. We are surrounded by NATO member nations. We are a nuclear deterrent. Russia has zero capability to strike the UK with conventional methods. Do we have gaps in capability. Yes, we do. But Russia has gaping chasoms in capability gaps. And overall capability. Ukraine has proven how useless they are.
That is by definition complacency. I’m aware of our relationship having worked with it. I wouldn’t rely on the US in Europe particularly if Taiwan kicks off and trumps in power. The current funding holdup for Ukraine is a great example. You have your head in the sand!
Well, Trump isn’t in power, and nothing has kicked off in Taiwan, apart from an earthquake. Abd still huge amounts have been donated to Ukraine. My head is in reality.
Trump isn’t in power, and nothing has kicked off in Taiwan, apart from an earthquake. And still huge amounts have been donated to Ukraine.
We rely on NATO for our own defence against a major threat and have done since 1949.
Relying on NATO doesn’t mean we cut our conventional capabilities to the levels of Spain (or weaker as we’re in danger of becoming). We’ve always had the capability to undertake independent operations without being reliant on others eg Falklands. There seem to be many apologists for ongoing hollowing out of our once tier 1 forces. We’re now near the bottom of tier 2.
I agree. We rely on NATO for our defence against a major threat ie Russia, as we could not handle Russia alone – but that doesn’t mean we pare back our spend on defence.
Conducting independent operations is another story.
USA failed to defeat some part time badly armed terrorists without tanks, planes or ships in Afghanistan, the yanks ran instead. They failed on Iraq twice, first not eliminating the guy in charge the second they left it to Isis. They screwed us over the Falklands. They failed in Vietnam and Korea. They screwed Taiwan for a couple of dollars in china. They only entered ww2 when Japan and Germany declared war on them. You can’t trust the yanks at all, they are runaway turncoat monkeys. If our defence depends at all on them we are lost…. The Russians might use nukes on us if we help Ukraine, what the fuck makes you think they will help us?
and with trump in charge they’d be even more flaky unless there’s a couple of $trn to give
The plan of USA is to provide security guarantees and sell weapons. It is not to enforce promises or wage war. This is just normal, I will never blame a US man or Congresman for that. They have helped us a lot somehow. We can all understand that since they feel currently like loosing the country to Latinos, and Pacific to China, interests are changing. Let’s do what we must, make kids and face Russians.
Those security guarantees are looking less reliable everyday Congress stalls on Ukraine. The USA can’t be seen as a saviour that will come and save the day no matter what.
That in turn means Europe needs to be more self sufficient in weapon production etc. europes forces are a strong force already so just some tweaks here and there.
I do think that the individual NATO nationals also need to be able to defend themselves. In reality the UK should be able to win a war against Russian as two nations the UK out masses Russia in a number of key areas:
1) Sovereign wealth, we are a far richer nation that Russian
2) tec, our technology and weapons tec is above that of Russia, we can build large complex modern warships..Russia has not been able to do this…at best it’s been able to produce frigate sized vessels.
3) we have better geostrategic position, we can access and attack Russian shipping lines and prevent access to and from the Atlantic.
4) our geostrategic position also means Russia cannot ever leaver its manpower advantage over the UK.
This means if there was a Russia UK war we should not have a problem ensuring we have the correct forces to lever a favourable peace.
I think the UK needs to also look at how it could win such a war on its own. NATO is the present, but it’s never been truly tested. It’s also not the complete guarantee assumed after all each nation decides how it reacts to the trigger of article five and this responce may not be an immediate trigger of that nation declaring total war…it could be as little as a strongly worded note. We also do not know what the future holds for NATO..what is now may not be what is in a decade…
NATO has many have greater potential weakness than we assume…
1) will the US or the two other nuclear powers ever trigger MAD and their own complete destruction due to a nuclear attack on another nation…would we be willing to end our culture and kill everyone if Turkey got hit with a nuclear weapon.
2) if one of the more belligerent NATO nations ended up causing a war what would happen if article 5 was triggered….
3) what about if russia used political warfare to destabilise a NATO nation but did not actively invade..how would NATO manage a civil war stoked by Russia ?
4) what if Russia and the UK got into some form of naval confrontation closer to say the Cod wars..what would NATO do ?
It’s unlikely Russia will attack NATOs strength….its going to nip and undermine, play at the edges.
Its unlikely will will ever fight on our own and by the nature of being an island our army only deploys with an alliance ( it cannot do anything else)…but we do need the ability to fight our own war…a nation dependent on others is casting its fate into the hands of other nations …and nations have never been kind, they are entirely amoral.
We wont? What, when russia attacks europe you really think the USA will help?I dont, it will just watch as it did in the last two wars. It is possible russia will make a mistake and declare war on the USA but it wont until after it has finished europe and frankly the yanks didnt enter WW2 until japan and Germany declared war so I dont think it will in WW3. Hell they wont even help Ukraine now because they are scared of russia and all Ukraine are asking for is weapons! Unless we elect some people who understand we are at war already – like Churchill, unless we replace the current batch of russia sponsored and blackmailed civil servants with ones who will actually take action, then we will lose russia will steam roller europe and we will be similarly flattened because we cat even make our own damned weapons.
“”In a recent Defence Committee meeting, concerns about the British military’s capacity for sustained operations were raised””
The minutes from the above can be found on the parliamentary website by searching for:
House of Commons
Defence Committee
Ready for War?
First Report of Session 2023–24
It can either be read as a PDF or HTML.
the summery reads as
Summary
Its quite damning of the current Government and of the MOD for example
The British army
46. General Sir Nick Carter told us that the Army was the “weakest service” and that it had “significant capability deficiencies”. Both Dr Simon Anglim and General Lord Houghton questioned whether the UK could field the heavy division which is committed to NATO without an Ally providing a Brigade. Professor Malcolm Chalmers questioned whether any such division could be deployed given that the British Army lacked both equipment and the logistics required to support it. Dr Rowan Allport of the Human Security Centre listed the capability resource and readiness shortfalls of the Army which
he described as “substantial”. These included:
The readiness of the AS-90 self-propelled artillery fleet which has been reduced by the (necessary) donation of 30 vehicles to Ukraine. The announcement that the UK will purchase 14 Archer artillery systems is not a full recapitalisation;
• Inadequate domestic air and missile defence capabilities. The British Army holds responsibility for the majority of UK ground-based surface-to-air missile unit but only one medium-range and one short-range SAM regular regiments, plus one short-range Army Reserve regiment, are in existence. Ballistic missile defences are absent. Electromagnetic and laser defence systems are largely still
in development;
• The bottleneck in procurement and delivery of the replacements for the roughly 6,000 NLAW anti-tank systems and 155mm artillery ammunition which have been vital in the Ukrainian Armed Forces fight against Russia. Replacements will only begin to be delivered at scale during 2024;
• An absence of regular Army close support artillery, engineering, REME and logistics support within the 4th Light Brigade Combat Team, with only Army Reserve units in these roles attached. This leaves the brigade unusable at short notice;
• A lack of air transport (chiefly sourced from the RAF) to support the ‘Persistent Engagement’ strategy. The forward deployment of Special Forces, elements of the Army Special Operations Brigade and Security Forces Assistance Brigade will require extensive fixed and rotary winged air transport support. This lack of air transport capacity appears to have led the MoD to outsource parachute
training to the private sector, with a contract opportunity of up to eight years running from Q1 2025 having been recently published;
• 3 Commando Brigade, historically the lead UK northern flank land formation, is no longer able to deploy at brigade strength. The Army has made some advances in this area but more can still be done to ensure an adequate capacity to operate in this increasingly important region. The MoD’s 2022 Arctic defence strategy document, The UK’s Defence Contribution in the High North, outlines current departmental efforts but is short on quantifiable specifics.
Couldn’t make it up in a month of Sundays regards the lack of air transport could you.
We’ve been heading in this direction for as along as I can remember. We are now at the point where it is debatable whether or not we can effectively defend ourselves let alone contribute to the defence of allies. We need to be able to defend our home base and resupply our civil population.
No one ever mentions convoys these days… and Russia does have a few subs…
Madness
CR
Defend ourselves from what? Seriously it’s f**king stupid continuous comments like that, that screws up the entire defence debate. Does this threat have to consider logistics? All your doing is talking up the MAGA talking points of Europe being defenceless without elaborating on what it needs to be defended from given that the only hostile nation with in several thousand miles managed a penetration of 40km into Europe poorest country before retreating.
Agree Jim. People seem to completely ignore that we would not fight alone and that we would fight differently to how Ukraine is forced to fight. Had Ukraine been a NATO country the early days of the war would have seen NATO wipe out huge volumes of Russia forces and supplies. With NATO contolling the skies their would be no need to the high volume artillery exchange we’re seeing in Ukraine as Russian artilley pieces and their supply lines would be easy pickings. I’m not saying we don’t need to do more on defence, we do. But the dumbest thing we could do is to prepare to fight an enemy on their terms.
NATO controlling the skies? What with massively expensive planes that can easily be shot down and noone can afford to replace because all the major economies of Europe are in massive debt? Russia far outguns Ukraine and they have massive problems with area denial through a few western anti air weapons. It takes years to train a fast jet pilot and we can’t even train enough now for what little aircraft we have. The collective west went down the route of technical supremacy but we now know that missiles and weapons are sophisticated enough for the cost benefit to be heavily weighted in favour of the defender.
We have also seen first hand that supply and logistics of expensive and complex weapons mean they take ages to produce, cost a fortune and an enemy with more mass at a cheaper cost and less fear of war weariness in their populations can easily prevail in a prolonged conflict
Shot down by who and what, Russia and S400? No chance and certainly no the Russian “Airforce”
Juts Two stormshadow took out an S400 battery and that’s without all the sophisticated techniques we would use much less F35.
Underestimate enemy capabilities… This is a dangerous approach. By the way, you stand in air bases while no troupe fight the ennemi at contact line? No need right, they will patiently wait for the next raid? It remind me Libya Tchad. Libya had migs and Sukhoy. France helped Tchad, providing them 300 pick-up Toyota. Everybody thought we were cheap. Next thing happening was a raid on Libyan Air Force bases. All fancy planes destroyed. I appreciate the will to pick the best fight, but neglecting fundamentals is costly.
There was a paper a few years ago by a russian scientist that stated seriously concerns about the Russian air defences ability to deal with slow moving drones and that has clearly been demonstrated. It seems you can also add glide bombs that that mix.
the Stormshadows took out the s400 after drones took out its radar, so its hard to know if it would have got through if the drones had not first been invovled.
What is less clear is how good the S400 etc would be against fighter jets, which is what they were designed to deal with.
Clearly in a war scenario with NATO, NATO would learn from Ukraine and deploy drones to take out the russian air defences.
Have you forgotten about the overwhelming air power demonstrated during both Gulf wars?
What as compared to Russian planes which are immune to air defences? Did you even do a comparison between the NATO and Russian forces.
Yes, 155mm ammunition is not cheap and it’s dangerous if you’re storing a lot. Why would we sit on mega piles when we would never use it. Precision weapon and missiles are much the same. You have to balance out the cost of stockpiles verses the benefit. The idea of cruise missiles and stand off weapons is very much to use then quickly and take out an opponents air defence and infrastructure. Not sit around lobbying them a few dozen at a time every month like the Russias do.
The UK has close 1000 cruise missile in storage which is one of the biggest arsenals in the world.
Agreed 👍
Just say Jim ,Trump gets wins the next Election pulls out of NATO ,how many NATO members would fight or stay in the Alliance ? That’s why one should be able to Defend one’s self never depend on other nations. Take a look at the Falklands conflict nothing to do with NATO ,it was a UK fight .No nation going to put there forces in harm’s way and risk ships or Aircraft if it’s nothing to do with NATO .An island nation like us who relies heavily on imports need to have a strong Army,Air force and Navy .However don’t think Trump would pull out of NATO ,But who ever thought the collapse of the USSR ? And sadly for it try and return with a Madman. 🤔
Quick correction there, NZ actually offered up a Frigate in the Falklands, bless our Antipodean cousins……
Up the Kiwis! That’s half their fleet! 😁
Agreed 👍
You gave them two type 42 like a month and a half before the war erupted…
What? Who gave what to who?
I gave New Zealand two Type 42 destroyers in 1982, I was only 16 on £25 a week YTS money, how the hell did I do that!!
I can assure you that’s simply not true.
I think he meant to Argentina. 😆
Only one T42 according to google.. ARA Santisima Trinidad. (D-2)
I’ll correct myself, two it was, I left out ARA Hercules (D-1)
I think you will find that NZ offered to send a frigate to the Gulf region to free up a RN frigate already there, allowing that (RN) frigate to be available for Falklands duty (if required). I understand the offer was not taken up, but it was made.
Ah, I stand corrected…. Still it’s like your mate holding your school bag and coat and looking
out for teachers while you have a fight behind the bike sheds, so still, good on our Antipodean cousins…..
Trump will not pull out of NATO. And its not the president’s decision alone.
True. It requires a vote in Congress to leave NATO.
If the US pulls out of NATO I would expect renewed commitment from European NATO members, why would anyone leave. I would also expect European NATO to make some form of reproach with China against Russia.
To be honest Jim I think we are asking the wrong question and looking at the wrong risk. Humanities experience of major wars is not an easy we bet the crap out of you with our vast alliance…it’s one of conflagration..one war begets a a second and a third and a fourth and fifth…so our question is not “is NATO prepared to defeat Russia” because in every material sense it can defeat Russia handily…the only key question in a Russia NATO war would be the “end game” and nuclear weapons ( how do you actually achieve victory against a nuclear powered state without triggering nuclear war ?).
The west problem is not “is it ready for war with one enemy”..it’s does the west think it’s enemies are so stupid as to line up in a row and be defeated one at a time…Italy and Japan did not immediately go to war with the British empire on sept 1 1939..world war two started as a limited conflict between Germany and its immediate possessions and France, Britain, Poland…Russia then joined in ( with the UK making a very significant decision not to declare war on Russia), then Italy decided to have a go, then Japan.
There is a very real possibility that NATO and the west will not just be at war with Russia but will end up fighting an apposing power block across the face of the globe…that is what we and NATO as well as the west other allies need to be prepared for in the next war….not just a war in Europe or a war in the western pacific…but a global conflict..that may start in Europe, the Middle East or Western Pacific and end in all regions…potentially the next war is not NATO wailing on Russia..it’s NATO and allies fighting Russia on the eastern boarder, China and Russia in the pacific, North Korea and China across the Korea peninsula, Iran, its proxies and china in the Middle East and Indian Ocean and a fight for resources and influence across the ever changing regimes of Africa. That’s our worst realist case for the next war and the one we should be baseline against the question is our nation ready for the next major war…not the question are we ready for a war…as that could mean anything…( are we ready to support the U.S. on beating up a second world power..if that’s the definition of war you are using then yes…is the nation prepared to fight a global conflict to the end game…the the answer is no…unless your bonkers).
Jim,
Would you have thought that Hitler posed a threat to the UK in 1933? Good job the-then PM (Ramsay MacDonald) formed a Rearmament committee in 1934 to launch rapid rearmament, or we would have lost the Battle of Britain and these islands may have then been invaded.
Good job too that MacDonald also had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who would increase the defence budget dramatically year on year – one Neville Chamberlain!
And the nazi invaded Poland and 2 years later we would of realized we wasted all that money on spitfires and radars.
I’m not following you. Why did we realise in about Sep 1941 that we had wasted money on Spitfires and radar?
Very true Graham, it’s often been quoted that UK rearmament started in 1936, but that’s when the monumental push that was already quietly going on in the background was shoved into high gear.
The reality is you can trace a growing unease among folks in the intelligence community who were following events in Germany closely from the late 1920’s.
Red flag after red flag were raised as the National Socialists went from a fringe party and took progressive control of the state, bit by bit.
Economists working within the intelligence community quite rightly worked out that War in Europe was almost unavoidable within 10 years by the early 1930’s as expansion was the only direction of travel for a Germany that was rapidly turning into a rearming military regime and killing democratic dissent in a ruthless systematic manor.
The government of the day sat up and listened and promptly started working on the foundations of rebuilding our military capacity.
We are at that 1933 position again, but zero sign that anyone in our useless house sitting, or future government, is listening or even gives the remotest shit.
Thanks. I have just found out that some action happened in 1933, the year Hitler took power:
“In October 1933, when the failure of the Disarmament Conference was evident, a Defence Requirements Sub-Committee (DRC) of the Committee of Imperial Defence was appointed to examine the worst deficiencies of the armed forces. The group first considered the Far East, but soon looked at dangers nearer home.[6]
The DRC was created on 14 November 1933, as “the arena in which British strategic foreign policy was thrashed out among competing interests with competing views”. Between November 1933 and July 1934 it set the UK’s strategic priority as being to avoid conflict with Japan and concentrate on Germany as the main threat.[7]
The DRC’s initial proposal was to spend £71m on rearmament over the next five years (1934-39) in order to re-equip the British Army for combat in Europe”.
Then the priority switched to the RAF, putting the army into second place.
It’s amazing to think that a small group of bureaucrats in 1933 made a decision that would directly effect the future as we know it today.
Had they decided (like today’s pointless fence sitters) to do nothing, then Europe would have fallen, it’s likely that the UK would have either surrendered or at least sued for peace and Germany would have had an unbreakable hold on Europe for decades.
America would have likely signed a non aggression pact with Germany and gone to war with Japan.
How the inevitable Russian/ German war turned out is debatable, but without allied help, Stalin would likely be pushed ‘well’ east of Urals with Germany occupying the European USSR.
It’s an amazing ‘what if’ to ponder isn’t it….
It’s often been hypothesised that the UK couldn’t win the war on it own, but take us out of the equation and it sure as hell would have been lost.
Hitler had to change the strategic plan for Op BARBAROSSA to launch Op MARITA to push us Brits out of Greece and some say he delayed launching his forces into the USSR.
We also tied down 3 German divisions in the Western Desert which would have been useful in invading the USSR. We also took out a huge number of German aircraft and aicrew in the BoB.
Had we not entered the war due to not being rearmed, then BARBAROSSA would probably have succeeded in its first year.
Facinating stuff Graham. I wonder what a successful invasion of the USSR world have actually looked like?
They couldn’t have gone much further than the Urals, due to the impossibility of occupying such a vast area.
Stalin would probably have decamped to Vladivostok and set up government there.
Eventually the Russians would have come back at them in strength, even if it took unto the 1950’s.
Perhaps Germany would have persuaded Japan to invade the Russian Far East, knock out key nodes and the Russians would have been taken down as a serious military power.
The Japanese would however have had their own problems trying to control their occupied areas of China and the far east, coupled with the vast military and economic might of the American steamroller reaching out across the Pacific towards them.
That said, if they were clever enough not to declare war on the US, then everything is different.
The Americans would likely have stuck to a non intervention and neutrality policy, providing the Japanese left their Far Eastern interests alone.
The Philippines being a particular thorny problem and ever present flashpoint.
If they managed to avoid conflict with the US however, the Japanese would have likely been persuaded that what was left of the Soviet Union was going to be a future problem for Japan and cooperated with Germany in its destruction.
All very interesting. You are right that a victorious Wehrmacht could not have garrisoned the whole of the USSR – they may have adminstered the more distant realms with local anti-communists/pro-Nazis, in a roughly similar way to Vichy France.
And the last point is the winner in what is an amazingly well informed and balanced comments section. An island nation that is not self sufficient that relies on masses of imports that has barely any navy, a tiny army and some Muppets for leadership.
And what country do you come from that has anything better??
👍
The good news is that all needed equipment exists within the EU, even in UK domestic production. So the ramp up is not often a matter of technology, rather a problem of Human Resources, funding and somehow production increase. All of this is in the hands and within the understanding of policy makers.
Can’t the powers that be between them all, roll their sleeves up and get this state of affairs sorted!? Can’t believe the seeming lack of will, common sense, even urgency. Aren’t they meant to be “leaders”? Well, lead the way out of this mess and go forward! Do your job! Can’t imagine these types surviving long in the commercial world.
Having said that we’d all hope and cut some slack that the majority of things get done well and within budget. I wonder what that percentage is? Anyone know?
I don’t really need to know, but hope it’s way more than 50%. 😆
Thinking of the last national emergency, the Covid-19 pandemic…. Plans were out of date, there was too little PPE in stock, little surplus bed capacity, the government ignored warnings, declared lockdown at least 2 weeks too late – then mismanaged the rest of the operation, many lives lost due to poor and late decision-making and spent far too much money.
Wonder if the next major war will be anything like that?
That’s a depressing list. Hopefully things are done much better if there’s a next time round.
And let’s hope there are no Pearl Harbour type surprises if a major conflict breaks out. Surely some medium to high level GBAD is in order for the UK mainland?
I agree that some UK mainland assets should have medium to high level GBAD. Just that we don’t have any.
Also need some ABMs.
Rich that General Carter is commenting here when much on that list is directly due to his own policy.
Yep, 4 LMBCT issues have been highlighted often here. It is not a deployable brigade, neither is 3 Cdo.
All due to Carters A2020 “Refine” in 2015 which removed yet more CS, CSS from the then 7 deployable brigades we had.
1,12,20 Armoured Infantry.
3 Cdo, 16 AA
2 Brigades from 1 UK Div that had the CS CSS. ( Probably 7 and one other )
The reductions in the air defence elements goes back to Labours time.
Nice work all round…..
Hi mate, I am reminded of certain quotes…the most famous of which might be…
“Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.”
– Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980
Other quotes, which Gen Carter had also clearly not heard of….
“Clearly, logistics is the hard part of fighting a war.”
– Lt. Gen. E. T. Cook, USMC, November 1990
“Gentlemen, the officer who doesn’t know his communications and supply as well as his tactics is totally useless.”
– Gen. George S. Patton, US Army
“Bitter experience in war has taught the maxim that the art of war is the art of the logistically feasible.”
– Admiral Hyman Rickover, USN
“Forget logistics, you lose.”
– Lt. Gen. Fredrick Franks, USA, 7th Corps Commander, Desert Storm
“I am tempted to make a slightly exaggerated statement: that logistics is all of war-making, except shooting the guns, releasing the bombs, and firing the torpedoes.”
– Admiral Lynde D. McCormick, USN
Evening mate.
Yes, my emphasis on all enablers continues! For me, the less exciting bits are as important as the pointy end.
And that includes your Corps.
Arsenal depth would be a crucial limiting factor in an all out conflict. as would outdated systems like watch keeper
Magazine depth becomes an issue if you sit in a field lobbying free ammunition at the other side for several years.
NATO is not designed to fight this way do we do have 50 million shells in reserve.
Don’t mention arsenal. You might upset the spurs fans
“”The dialogue began with Emma Lewell-Buck MP, questioning the rejection of over 125,000 Army applicants due to a reported lack of vacancies. The Secretary of State for Defence, Grant Shapps, responded that he was unaware of the specific FOI mentioned but acknowledged systemic issues in recruitment practices needing urgent attention.””
Regards the question posed above, it helps to point out the following:
Taken from the action against violence website article date 15/02/24:
Analysing trends in British Army application rejections: a five-year overview
In the last five years, the British Army rejected 125,861 applicants, with the primary reason being medical disqualification (76,187 cases). Additionally, 23,763 Commonwealth applicants were turned away due to a lack of vacancies. The data highlights medical reasons as the leading cause of rejection, followed by limited vacancies for Commonwealth candidates, indicating either increased interest from these nations or fewer available positions. Administrative hurdles, like incomplete paperwork, have also been a notable obstacle for potential recruits.
The NGO obviously submitted a FOI request as at the bottom they published a chart by year: from 19/20 regards the reasons people failed to be accepted by the army Such as the following rejections for 23/24
Over age: 131 previous year was (PY) 42
Underage: 17 PY was 6
Alcohol: 13 PY 19
Crime :245
Non completion of Forms: 1097
Piercings: 35
Medical: 12076
Commonwealth – No current vacancies : 7707
Total rejections for 23/24: 23175 PY 23100
We could have more than doubled our forces then?
Admittedly most would be unfit but as it seems there’s going to be a lot of autonomous vehicles sitting on their fat arse in a comfy chair should no longer preclude them from (in)active service.,
“Unfit”? You should see the absolute 5hit show I saw with the fattest Coldstream Guardsman who was followed by a 5ft 5ft half man meandering across the tarmac at Wellington Barracks. Both looked an absolute disgrace. I am surprised they managed to get a uniform for them. Are they trying to tell us there were no fitter men than those two?
Exactly. Why does Emma Lewell-Buck MP, consider that the rejection of over 125,000 Army applicants is due to a reported lack of vacancies? They were rejected for ‘reasons of unsuitability’ [some of which is questionable], rather than lack of vacancies.
“We could not fight an enduring war for more than a couple of months…because we do not have the ammunition or the reserves of equipment to do it. That’s true, isn’t it?”
I cant believe if we send are to potentially send a brigade (other) out on a training or combat operation that they have not previously gone through an inventory check for everything they need?
So there must be ammunition and equipment
Get the factories to make more and build up the stock
Its not hard
Seems to be a complete lack of organisation
Lack of money, more like.
We absolutely need to improve things like infrastructure resilience and ammunition stocks, but……
When back in the day the BAOR and wider NATO forces expected to last at best days before they were overwhelmed by The Red Army and the whole thing went nuclear why should we expect our Armed Forces in 2024 to keep fighting Russia for months?
I’m not sure how long the BAOR were expected to ‘hold out’ but they were only the vanguard to provision time for other forces to organise.
However I find it difficult to believe the BAOR and wider NATO forces only expected to last daysbefore it went nuclear.- seems pointless even having NATO if that was indeed the case.
It’s was days, NATO forces were totally outnumbered by the Warsaw pact. Massively different story today where NATO massively outnumbers the Russian’s.
Bearing in mind that then NATO would have been be facing the Warsaw pact. That consisted of the Soviets, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and East Germany. They then definitely had the numbers and mass to force a breakthrough.
My father was a troop commander in the Lifeguards, when they operated Chieftains. Later he used to mention that when they were part of the BAOR. The party line was they had to try to resist the Soviet offensive for 5 to 7 days. Not so sure about the Berlin brigade?
This amount of time was for the UK, France, Spain and Portugal to ramp up their forces and send them to Germany. He then said the Replacements had to last 3 to 4 weeks. As this was the expected time it would take for the US and Canada to mobilize and send their forces by sea. He also mentioned that these forces would unlikely have any time allowed for training once reaching Europe. As they would be needed immediately to relieve the likely exhausted European forces.
From their sector between the Detmold/Hannover corridor. They had hundreds of pre-arranged defensive hull down positions. That the Chieftains would pull back to. When fitted with the Stillbrew appliqué armour. The Chieftains were “expected” to resist the onslaught of the T62,72 and 80s from their hull down positions.
Exactly
That long?…
After all the cuts I’m actually impressed if we’d last that long!
It’s almost like we’re sponsered by Russia & China.
Tory mantra should be, “When life gives you cuts, find more cuts.”
I am surprised that the Army has 2 month capability against Russia as a report from a year or so ago was talking about 7 days worth of ammunition. So I guess some improvements have taken place.
I am convinced that the government wants manning numbers below 72k and the easiest way has been to throttle recruitment which has been an ongoing issue for years now.
The next government that looks likely to take over has stated concerns over troop numbers that are, I believe genuine. So there may be some hope on at least maintaining or better still increasing troop numbers over time.
For deployment of a division there is an option to reduce the current size to more suit the logistics available. The Russians use a much smaller size division so to me there is no need to be glued to a historically much larger formation that lacks units and logistics.
Overall the report demonstrates a lack of concern from the highest level of government, this is troubling as the potential for the current conflict to spread is high. Even if there is a resolution to settle this war stability in Eastern Europe and the Baltics will be very questionable for many years.
don’t get too excited, they said less than two months, not at least two months.
Just what is our government capable of ,there all just out for themselves they don’t care about the people never have ,send aid to foreign countries while our own are homeless, people using food banks, now we’re just finding out that they can’t even protect our own country, its an absolute joke what are they there for ,they have known for over a decade that ,China and Russia are our enemies, Don’t be fooled, they are coming, and our useless government don’t have a clue what to do about it ,shame on them ,I absolutely can’t stand what they represent, it’s certainly not the people
The army as an expeditionary force is over in any meaningful sense, just plough any money into standoff weapons & drones etc for the RAF, RN and royal artillery and leave infantry and mech forces to the Europeans
…or we could just fix the issues. The British Army has always been expeditionary and full spectrum.
And even if the Army is smaller, that it can still be upscaled reasonably rapidly if needed. Needs to be supported by sufficient personnel, weaponry, hardware, transport, UK industry and politicians!
Not sure the army can be upscaled rapidly. Capita takes 12-15 months to recruit someone and then basic infantry training at ITC is 6 months, more complex roles have far longer courses.
Of course there is always conscription, if we are sure we are entering WW3!
Best not to make the Army too lean then if that’s the case! There’s got to be some “real” point where a certain number and levels of equipment is needed that is surely just plain stupid to go below. Maybe there’s too many opinions as to what that level is or should be? With all the East-and inbetween-West tensions time to beef things up a bit and I’m not talking about 🥩!
As Graham knows, the issue isn’t that it takes six months to train someone through basic training (capita process can be sped up lets be honest), the issue 7 years to make a Corporal and 12 years to make a Sergeant.
Ouch! That’s excruciatingly slow.
Typically two x 3-year postings to gain 2 ranks (to Cpl) – I think that is quite good going.
Well you want career NCO’s who have a lifetime of experience to draw on when leading troops in the field… then you need a life time to grow that experience.
Thanks Dern for adding the ‘experience’ factor.
On the officer side it used to take 6.5 years to make a substantive Captain – probably a bit less now.
I mean, it could be argued it takes 20 odd years to make a decent Captain. 😀
Sorry yes Direct Entry are Captains too.
Fair point! I was thinking of DE Captains rather than LE.
The Options for Change defence review in Summer 1990 reduced the forces from their Cold War numbers to those required for the post Cold War world – and some reasonable analysis was used to get to the new figures (although the analysis did not foresee anything like the two Gulf wars and Afghanistan).
The army was reduced from 160,000 to 120,000 regs. The Territorial Army was reduced from 91,000 to a peacetime level of 63,000 to be expanded in emergencies to 71,000.
The army was reduced from a large (800?) Chieftain/CR1 mixed force to a mere 386 tanks (CR2s delivered from 1998).
Those are the numbers required. [Cuts that have happened since the 1990 Review have been due to political and monetary factors, not due to any reduced threats.]
They are substantial reduction figures Graham. Just picturing all the personnel coming and then going and the tanks too. It’s a bit depressing and must be for you. We have to stay strong with what we’ve got now in partnership with our allies and be able to uptake and support each other when demanded.
Those reduction figures were to get the army down to its post Cold War structure/configuration in the very early 90s and were justified by the collapse of the WP and the monolithic USSR threat which sat in easter Germany and adjacent communist countries. I have absolutely no issue with any of that. If threat reduces (seemingly permanently) then it is logical that our force levels reduce.
The far bigger issue is the illogical reduction since then (ie from early 1990s to the present) from those revised numbers. The post cold war army of 120,000 is now 73,000. The tanks are reducing from 386 to 148 etc.
Couple of weeks more like, mind you the Russians would have probably folded by then anyway.
A couple of months is rather generous, more like 7-10 days of high intensity conflict. Some capabilites will be eroded beyond measure within a couple of days.
Why aren’t any politicians or military leaders publicly calling for the ban on cluster munitions to be scrapped.
If, as they say we should be preparing for war with Russia, and Russia is not a signatory, and has been using them in Ukr ,then why are we not producing and stockpiling them.
They are effective in stopping troops and vehicles, more so if we dispensed containers from drones at lond range. Cheaper than trying to grow the army, when employment is high, and forces accommodation and conditions poor.
Isn’t that what they said about the Ukrainian military
Been saying it for years.
I seem to remember from the eighties that the maximum time a hot European land war could be fought was 3 weeks due to the size of fuel reserves on both sides
I need to dig out the exact figure from my archive.
With 150 tanks and 70.000 soldiers even we,re not able to fight with Poland.
…and our 73,000 reg soldiers are not all deployable.
i tryed to rein list but got refused because i have a tattoo on my neck but now you can have a beard the times have changed lots of people have tattoos now its part of life the army have to change its only ink x soldiers like me have the skills and ambition to rejoin but dont stand a chance because the army is stuck in the past but let them grow beard so the gas mask does no become affective and wont seal but a tattoo gets you bared from joining
Recently I’ve been wondering if NATO can survive Trump.
We all know there are countries in it who will never lift a finger and are just in it for US protection, but that works because it means the US gets to exert influence in other areas and sell them weapons.
But if Trump gets his way and everyone is paying their fair share then the military balance between the US and Europe would be very different and I highly doubt Europe would still be happy with the US being in charge.
So maybe we’ll see a new NATO form without US dominance programmed in from the start and without the freeloaders, but I wonder if it would be stronger or weaker.
Without the freeloaders? Who would be left? The UK, Poland, Greece?
Greece not a freeloader ? Looooool
Love the optimism……in a traditional war we wouldn’t last a couple of weeks, let alone months.
You only get what you vote for and this is what we voted for peeps
Not one of the parties or options are worth the ballot paper they are written on, all the same self serving self interested hyenas but different coloured ties.
Let’s hope we don’t get dragged into a war with Russia as it will go like this;
Russia owned from the air
Massive loss of air defences for Russia
Then the nukes will come out.
I’ll give it 30 days.
Why do you write these articles making us look so weak you constantly write about no boats or submarines working and then an article like this this site should be taken down absolutely stupid journalism
You’re right, it’s our fault that ships are having issues and that Parliament are concerned about these things.
They are constructively trying to highlight the issues. Don’t shoot the messenger.
This web IS the sad reality of the poor situation , be realistic.
Russia poses 2 threats to the UK. Pre-emptive nuclear strike and disruption of shipping and communication systems. Against the first we have Trident, with new warheads in greater numbers being acquired. Against the second we have anti submarine forces with high end capabilities together with a newly acquired seabed protection vessel.
Russian aircraft pose little real danger- their small fleet of cold war relics would quickly be be destroyed.
Russian ground forces are not a threat. As in Chechnya, the Ukraine war has exposed the ineptitude of their leadership and the obsolescence of much of their equipment. How is an army that couldn’t reach Kiev going to reach Britain?
The Russian submarine fleet is still large and capable. So maximizing our ASW capability should be a priority. Perhaps too, we need more GBAD to address the risk of long range nuisance attacks with conventional warheads.
We may need a larger army, or better still, one that could be expanded rapidly if needed. But not because of Russia.
I doubt the Russian Army is setting its sights on conquering Britain – but we have to deploy if eastern European NATO nations are threatened or invaded. It’s not all about us!
With 150 tanks , 70.000 soldiers, 150 fighters, Britain Alone can do NOTHING against Russia, be realistic not dreaming.
If it did come down to it, it’s doesn’t matter what the agreement is with NATO, in the end individual countries will decide. Trump has already threatened not come to the aid of countries not paying their way so this NATO coming to the aid is not set in concrete. How many countries in Europe that are in NATO will just say no. Only the UK and France have Nuclear weapons and in WW2 France put their hands up in a fortnight probably just leaving Nuclear armed UK. So the question should be if Putin decides to get rid of the only feasible Nuclear threat in Europe the UK how many so called NATO countries will come to our aid. Plus having only one Vanguard at sea and the Capt has a letter from the current PMs stating what he has to do, 1, if UK command is wiped out he can fire independently his missiles, 2, hand the boat over to the US, 3, hand the command of the boat over to the command of NATO. Europe may decide Nuclear war is not a option so decide not to get involved or even may assist in stopping our Vanguard from firing. So everything comes down to the US and who wins the next election Trump may come to our aid, Biden is well known for been Anti-UK. THIS COULD BE THE WORST CASE.
The problem is that the individual was not answering the whole of that question and there are various answers depending on what you mean by war.
Is the county ready to go to war…it should be both yes and no.
is the county ready to participate in a minor conflict with allies against an inferior enemy and second world nation.In which there is no meaningful impact on the nation other than a small number of military deaths, then the answer would problem be yes.
is the county ready to participate in a peer war involving two massive power blocks, that involves all domain of warfare, from kinetic, industrial, supply and demand, economic, political, cyber and may drag on for a number of years…with ongoing attacks via various domains on the homeland and an ever-present risk of nuclear Armageddon. A war in which potentially many 10 of thousands of our personal die and across the world hundreds of thousands or even millions of people would die and our economy and every other economy is shattered as the two sides fight to strategic exhaustion or political collapse…then the answer is clearly no the nation is not ready and lacks the imagination to even consider it a risk or possibility. Our leaders do not even have the will to tell the population and nation it’s a risk let alone prepare for it.
I could only call this Shambolic. Especially when ‘if the Rumours were true’ that ‘someone’ raised the alarm about this only ‘30 days’ after Russia invaded Ukraine.
From what intelligence suggests this person, took a ‘calculated risk’ in raising this alarm and also wrote to members of Parliament but got an expected weak reply (as always)
Now two years have past and we are not any stronger.
What does that tell you about our leadership in this Country ?
A Weak King
A Weak Leadership Set Up
A Weak Army
A Weak Nation
With all the training at home and overseas exercises which are meant to test our capabilities!
When did someone in the British Army, suddenly figure out they can’t do it?
And how can they now be doing a Global Response Force?
Especially If our ammunition and equipment are too low to sustain more than a 2-month deployment with potential conflict involved!
It’s a confusing mess
We armchair warriors can rant all we want, but they need to get a grip!
And this makes me laugh 😂 WTF
“The Secretary of State for Defence, Grant Shapps, responded that he was unaware of the specific FOI mentioned but acknowledged systemic issues in recruitment practices needing urgent attention.”
Surely he should be receiving all sorts of information on the Armed Forces and have the means to extract that information straight away?
If there really were Russians at Dover, the UK would be on a war footing and discussions like this would be moot.
In any case, in a situation like this Russia would also be taking on NATO, so would be watching its back for attacks from mainland Europe and beyond.
Then they need to think before giving stuff away, and scrapping kit. We need reserves of gear, manpower and ammunition.
If it were me I would send all of our Tanks, Artillery, Small Arms and Ammunition to Ukraine. That will keep Ukraine going. If Russia can’t take Ukraine and runs out of Armaments & Money in a year or so’s time from now then there won’t be a pressing need for us to restock.
If we don’t supply Ukraine and it falls to Russia through lack of Armaments & Ammunition then we having to quickly stock our Army as a deterrent or preparedness for a Russian Invasion in a few years time. That’s not as good a position to be in when supplying Ukraine can overt that.
Big Armies cost a lot to maintain being sat around a long time in readiness. That eventually makes a country economically poorer.
Jesús !! Are you working for the British mod, alias ministry of cuts !! , Scrap the armed forces, give all to Ukraine, the goal is to leave Britain unarmed, Putin would be Happy. Oh my god.
We have Nukes, no one is going to attack a country with Nukes. There’s no point having a standing army all pristine stood around polishing themselves doing nothing but costing a lot of expense. Get the weapons to where they will be used. Big standing armies cost a fortune to maintain over time while the economy suffers and only military industrialists get rich.
Whilst NATO’s must be strong, Putin goes as far as he can without daring to get into open conflict with NATO. We should assume we take control of the air and seas and not in our interests to get bogged down in ongoing trench warfare.
Good Evening,
Nothing new! Almost every day and week, year after year many of us post comments to ask even plead for the Government in charge to increase Defence spending to counter act the very dangerous developments in world security! Nothing seems to be happening!
Labour people reading please take notice!
All parties should define a common Defence policy that remains stable and considers all threats and required measures to ensure we are safe from all potential threats! This also requires agreed funding irrelevant who is in power!
Sad but even this mail will be ignored by the politicians!
Nick
I wouldn’t worry too much about “fighting Russia”. It is highly unlikely that such a war would remain conventional. It would likely evolve into a situation where the main worry would be whether one could get out of London, Washington and Moscow fast enough to try to save one’s family.
Great radars, satellites and whatever else and yet next to no GBAD to take anything out of the sky!
None of our GBAD is likely to be assigned to guarding UK-based facilities/infrastructure. It is likely to deployed overseas defending the field army.
I remember Daniele and others have mentioned a while back that GBAD for the UK mainland, like CAMM-ER/MR, is progressing along with VSHORAD and counter drone. So will remain positive that there’s lots going behind closed doors.
It’s has finally come home to roost ,the damage done by this stinking government has been laid bare ,unprepared, armed forces shafted by incompetent useless bxxxxxds,we do truly have it all laid out in front of our eyes ,SOLD OUT BY CORRUPT VERMIN RUN BY A STINKING FXXXXXXG BANKER ,BIG EARS AND HIS NODDING DONKEY GOVERNMENT 🫏 😳 😀
We don’t have the men, equipment, armaments, anything that would let us fight against any ten cent country of 50 men, the armed forces of the UK brave though the men are have been so badly let down by the civil servants and politicians they aren’t even a joke now. Look at the aircraft carriers, if they function, that’s a big if, then we don’t have the aircraft to half fill one never mind both, and those are shared with the RAF where they represent what half the force? The Russians lost more tanks than we possess last month, more ships than the royal navy this year as more planes than the RAF in the last week… We couldn’t fight them for half an hour now.
Turkey is already a Russian supporter IN NATO, Slovakia has just joined them, the USA is scared of Russia, Germany panics it won’t be able to get cheap russian gas, we support and back china, the west is dead,buried and finished… Totally. We will be ruled by Russia before the end of this decade. China will rule the car east. In the middle east Iran is about to overrun Israel and will win by brute force
Bit silly, Dave if you don’t mind me saying so. Turkey is not a supporter of anyone but Turkey and will do as Erdogan wishes in the best interests of him and his regime, nothing more. They wont fight if there is a war with Russia but wont help Russia either. It’ll just be about Erdogan using the situation to line his own pockets. China will rule the Far East yes but commercially and economically, not militarily. It has too much to gain by keeping the trading going and too much to lose by getting into it with Japan or Australia etc.
As for Iran overrunning Israel, you are absolutely dreaming mate. Israel is a nuclear power and would curbstomp Iran at arms length even without resorting to nukes at a time and place of Israel’s choosing. You’ll see soon enough when Iran gets close to having their own nukes, Israel will simply remove them from the equation. Iran has no ability to fight Israel militarily, that’s why they attack them through their Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi and Iraqi proxies. You saw it this week – the Ayatollahs were giving it the big one about how they would strike against Israel directly and telling the US to stand aside, etc, but then they s**t themselves when they realised what actually doing this would actually mean. They have no interest in getting a public beatdown from Israel. Much better to sacrifice the Palestinians, Lebanese and Yemenis to actually do the fighting instead. I’m not sure what brute force you are referring to: they have zero ability to fight a conventional war against Israel, zero ability to actually go there, cross Syria and Iraq and have a proper standup ruck with them. Remember they only just have an air force and army and navy. Having what limited equipment they do have liquidated in short order by Israeli standoff weapons doesn’t help them as the sanctions mean they cannot easily replace them. Israel are trained specifically for this exact scenario, they would absolutely DISMANTLE Iran in a real shooting war.
USA scared of Russia? Are you sure mate? Scared of what exactly?
Surely the old adage of always fighting the last war has some relevance.
If we are as unprepared as some may say, could this be the time to have a totally radical approach towards defence.
The UK vs Russia would never be the UK in isolation, but if we assume it is NATO minus the US vs Russia then I still think we would have enough to make it a short and very violent fight where NATO would prevail.
My view is that Russia would be unable to cede the sea to NATO and would quite quickly lose control of the skies over its borders. In the former case the NATO submarine forces are too numerous, too advanced, too quiet and too capable. Black Sea would be cut off, they’d lose access to the Baltic ports and anything coming out of the White Sea/Murmansk would be up against the varsity British and French nuclear boats. The Russians simply don’t have the numbers to sortie dozens of nukes into the Atlantic as they were supposed to do in the Cold War. The Russian crews aren’t as well trained, the NATO boats are quieter and more reliable as they are better maintained and kept. It would be a horrible confrontation but NATO would succeed in shutting the White Sea off to a large extent I believe.
Then in the air you have the huge advantage provided by the NATO F-35s, making it extremely difficult for the Russians to get its command and control aircraft and tankers anywhere near the front. Sortie rates drop as they focus on protecting them long enough to support meaningful offensive ops. Bringing the Russians into a night time fight with NATO’s best where the NATO birds have better situational awareness and stealth, is how we like to fight these days. Lopsided, unfair, exactly how it should be.
I think a conventional fight in Europe with NATO minus the US versus Russia hinges on NATO removing Russia’s ability to control the battlefield and SEAD/DEAD missions to strip away the layered SAM and AAA defences will take skill and patience (and likely huge sacrifice) but every Flanker, S-400, Pantsir and comms relay Ivan loses is one he cannot easily replace. If NATO tactics are correct, hunting down the SAM radars and their launchers at night using stealth plaforms, localised jamming, stand off LO munitions and drone decoys will grind the Russian down very fast. The Russian tactics are to prevent these coordinated attacks from being staged by placing forward airbases and control assets in danger with artillery and rocket/SRBM strikes.
On the ground as the air fight takes its course, the Poles, Germans and the NATO troops in the Baltic states have a huge firepower advantage over the Ukrainians the Russians have been fighting and are better trained and better supported, with more robust comms. It isn’t likely Russia could or would try division scale armoured manouvers let alone at Corps level, the war in Ukraine has shown they simply cannot do this. Without that level of cohesion they have almost no chance of beating NATO in a stand up fight on open ground.
The Russians will hope that their reliance on GPS jamming, drones and suicide munitions will destroy NATO unit cohesion and prevent them from systematically going after the Russian air defence and electronic warfare units.
The point is a conventional confrontation is over and done with in a month. Neither side has the stocks of front line equipment or trained personnel to last beyond that.
The wildcard is the United States.
If they are involved then the confrontation becomes more lopsided and shorter. Russia merely loses the air and sea much faster, but also spreads the conflict to Pacific side Russia as well, Vladivostok and Sakhalinsk etc, becomes a big air and sea confrontation which the Russians will comprehensively lose.
All that said, our forces do not have the readiness and reserves needed to sustain in a large scale peer conflict like this and need to be urgently bolstered and augmented. It will require immediate investment of tens or even hundreds of billions of pounds to do so, but it is clear our current forces simply aren’t up to it.
We need more artillery, lots more air defence units at the tactical and strategic level, more METEORs, several Wedgetails, more Voyagers, more A400MS, speeding up the AESA upgrade for the Typhoon, more drones, more standoff stealthy munitions, more tactical air lift, more helicopters, more fleet assets with a credible surface to surface capability, more armour and more active protection systems. And the men and women trained to the highest level to operate and fight with it all.
In an ideal world, a couple more squadrons of F-35As or more Bs would be nice, more latest tranche Typhoons, five or six of the new SSNs we are helping design for the Aussies to augment the Astutes, NSM for all surface assets, another two squadrons of Poseidons, focus on a Boxer/Redback/Ajax triumvirate and many hundreds of each for the ground forces, reintroduction of air defence vehicles with a reach greater than the range of current Russian helicopter-borne ATGMs, at the tactical manouver level… the list goes on.
But the Government wont pay for all that, sadly.