Liger30Yup. In the unlikely event of it managing to fight its way past the Turks, I think the Greeks should easily be able to mop up any survivors.
Because the whole world is stupid SAVE for NATO, or better yet save the UK…? You all like to undervalue Russia a bit too much, i see. And tend to give for sure a timely, effective and resolutive intervention of the allies.
And why would Greece have to care at all about russian ships if it had no direct threat aimed at it? Greece’s enemy of choice is Turkey, never forget that.
Besides, Russia could always build up alliances in the Mediterraneo or elsewhere.
Just as many smaller NATO members, faced by the reality of the events, may have no will at all to engage seriously in true fighting unless they are really forced to by the enemy.
It is common belief the UK would not intervene in a Korea crisis, right? I read this assumption a lot on forums like this one.
Unfortunately, the UK is one of 16 countries who signed the peace act of the war of Korea, included a very clear passage that states that the coalition would again intervene if a new war was to happen.
The Uk would realistically say “no, thanks, we’d like to stay out of this”. We agree on that point. No one likes to throw himself into the mess if he can avoid to.
Think there would be no “escape attempts” in the event of a true, serious and nasty crisis?
Hope we never need to find out the answer.
The reluctance to provide a bunch of additional helos for Afghanistan when the US and UK and the NATO high officers asked for that again and again is no promising signal of will to actually step on the field unless there’s no other way to go.
Liger30To stay serious. A real threat for the NATO does nut pop-up over night either.
Till 1990 the NATO had a restricted area of operations for good reasons.
Afghanistan was one of the first out of area interventions of the NATO. It has no realistic military targets nor political ones. The idea was to lend some fire-power to an elected government. Even in the more developed Iraq it does not works satisfactory and no chance about that in Afghanistian with tribes some centuries behind.
A typical no win situation for all to see, but it is keot going by billions and blood the crumbling atomic Pakistan in mind. Otherwise Afghanistan was abandoned like Somalia for some years already.
Some people have a very short memory about that. The Russians had much more soldiers and fire-power in Afghanistan and reached non of their related political gains after 11 years. From 2001 till 2012 we will get a similar result. 😎
A real THREAT perhaps no.
A real NEED, yes.
Counter-IED being the most evident example of NATO’s requirements that no one was truly able to foresee and prepare for. And after all this time, the alliance still lags about the matter.
Besides, being the UK the largest contributor to NATO after the US, being Germany the largest supplier of land forces to the alliance outside the US, and being Europe busy in slashing defence budgets all over the place, reducing massively numbers and capabilities, NATO is effectively growing weaker.
While Russia, to add to my little list of procurement programs, recently announced it is going to buy 1700 license built IVECO LMV, the ones the UK calls “Panther”, to add to the russian-designed and produced Tigr.
Norway, UK, Germany, Danmark, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Canada, ….. and some more can be contributed to NATO task forces to deal with the remains of the Northern Fleet should the need arise at all.
Spain, Portugal and Italy would realistically have to care for the Black Sea fleet first of all.
As to the effective contribution of all these nations, we’d have to see what they could effectively pull out of their hat, and verify their effective commitment to stepping in. Because the North Sea holds massive british interests, and the North and the Baltic fleets of the russians could cause havoc very badly, very quickly.
And we shouldn’t overvalue certain contributions: Canada lines old Upholder subs that have been plagued by problems from when they took them over and are not reliable at all, some are not even operative, and the Halifax frigates are also aging and having their own obsolescence.
And the ships aren’t the only matter: the russians still have supersonic anti-ship missiles in numbers, and the strategic bombers to fire them, from TU95 to TU22 to the newest SU34 Fullback. Lots of work for HMS Daring, that would be.
And then there’s the Oscar SSGNs and the Kirov, units designed to be able to face, alone, a US Carrier group with their massive, supersonic anti-ship missiles. Now that would be a test for any Aster or ESSM missile screen.
There’s no real reason to exagerate with the optimism when it comes to Russia.
Liger30Not exactly true. The UK purchased the rights to a number of Trident missiles (50-60 IIRC). These missiles rotate through the US Maintenance system rather then being maintained in the UK as it is cheaper. The reason I say they purchased the rights rather then the missiles, is because the individual missiles that they have at any one time, could by any missile in the entire inventory of Trident D5 missiles.
However the UK OWNS those missiles.
It is philosophy. Call it ownage, call it lease. At any moment, 58 Trident missiles from the common mainteinance pool of missiles of the US Atlantic Fleet are ensured to be operative with the Royal Navy, that’s the point.
Note that 58 are not even enough to fill all Vanguard’s tubes, and some of the Trident missiles were test-fired. I don’t know if this means the number of Trident missiles available for the UK has dropped lower or if the US keep supplying enough missiles to fill the 58 figure.
In any case, it wouldn’t be a real issue seen that number of missiles and warheads embarked already are far lower than the true capacity of the subs for policy.
On the matter, Wikipedia reports:
While the theoretical capacity of the four Vanguard-class submarines is 64 missiles and 768 warheads, only 58 missiles were leased and some have been expended in test firings. The UK leases the missiles but they are pooled with the Atlantic squadron of the USN Ohio SSBNs at King’s Bay, Georgia (previously the UK maintained its Polaris missiles).
Liger30It would have been enough not to have planned selling the UK carriers and giving away the old HMS Endurance and the Argies wouldn’t have moved…
Then again, having the old-style proper carriers with Buccaneers and Phantoms would have scared them even more.
But then again, that was too effective. “We are not using it! It is not needed!”
A proper force ready to move in and kick down the door is the best of all deterences.
And Buccaneers and Phantoms together made up for a FORMIDABLE force.
As will, hopefully, the F35B on Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales tomorrow.
Liger30im in full agreement NATO does not cover all of our commitments.
My pointing out youre error and citing article six was not to prove you wrong, but to demonstrate why you were correct in youre assesment that we may have to go it alone. -The correction was only regarding 82.
And i Thank you for that. You saved me a gaffe i rarely make when it comes to military stuff, and it was a fairly huge one at that!
But, you know. I think that britons are britons all over, and i find that rule of the NATO alliance pretty stupid.
I’m glad we agree on the main point, too. We can’t expect NATO to magically solve all problems. It is irresponsible and childish.
Liger30Actually Liger, the Sea King AEW was only authorised after HMS Sheffield was lost, although much of the design work had been carried out pre conflict. It did not make it into service until after the war.
You are right about the danger of relying on regenerating capabilities in a crisis. Whilst pulling things out of the hat is something we do, there are all sorts of dangers involved – not least getting good intelligence warnings and having politicians with the will to act on them. One example is the Sea Harrier FA2, which our politicians decided was no longer needed, also discussed here in the Naval Aviation sub forum (note also the links to the PPRuNe Sea Jet thread).
On a continuing naval theme, have a look at this Canadian video: Operation APOLLO: Part One
Thanks for the detail you added, but you merely confirmed my point. Further shame was to wait to see Sheffield sinking before acting. Demented, i say, to wait a ship being sunk to move on with a project that could and should have been completed far earlier, but this is another, politically-related reason why “UORs” are not the right way to go.
They always become “urgent” only after something nasty proves they are absolutely needed. (HMS Sheffield, the 34 deaths in Land Rovers, and what else? What next time?)
Officials telling the government “we need this and that” are only people wanting “new toys”. I hate this way the press and some stupid people has to present the requests of the armed forces officers. I respect the officers and their analysis, and i find that rarely, if ever, their requests lack of common sense.
It is shameful to treat them like greedy childrens, they deserve far more respect than they are given.
Liger30Ok, i checked in and you are most definitely right. Thank you for correcting me. I don’t like it, it is not fair, but it is a correct fact.
However, the point does not change. Considering this one “detail” alone, i pose again the question: does this make NATO the answer to all the situations the UK has to face and plan for?
No.
Simple like that.
Liger30Just a small correction NATO was not required to become involved in the falklands.
(first and Obvious – its not the North Atlantic – it lies well outside the area covered within the treaty)Secondly it wasnt soverign territory, so no obligation
The falklands do not belong to Britain they are tied to and a protectorate of the UK but effectivly they are independent (as far as is possible). wether they were a colony or not in 82 i dont recall.
It is a common misconception that NATO should have been involved – like wise if diego garcia or any French posession in the pacific were taken NATO would not be obliged to become involved. (as written algeria was included but that was bcause france saw Algeria as Southern france not a colony in terms of politics)
just thinking im not sure what the score is with gibralter, i suspect that it would be covered because of its strategic importance.
EDIT
As regards the reluctance of certain members to contribute to Afghanistan -well thts another topic for discussion, but be aware some nations who contribute little there – have significant forces deployed on other NATO Ops ie peace keeping
I disagree with that.
Falklands are “British Oversea Territory” and as such they are british territory and inhabited by britons. I don’t see with what kind of conscience Falklands inhabitants can be considered so evidenly second-rank citizens.
NATO’s agreement, i believe, talks of “aggression on any member”. The invasion of the Falklands was most definitely an aggression on a NATO member.
If we have to accept, however, exceptions so serious about the rule, the result is still the same of my earlier reasoning: we should be doubt of NATO’s effective relevance very seriously. And retain a serious indipendent capability.
Yesterday was the Falklands, today is Afghanistan, tomorrow what will it be? Gibraltar? Akrotiri? Or the channel islands? Because those are formally “indipendent” as well.
Too many exceptions. Too many ways for allies to say “sorry, it is your own problem”.
Liger30sorry liger, i used lazy english there.
what i should have said, was “concerning the issue of trident…” I wasn’t trying to imply you didn’t know anything.
anyway, what do you think?
My vision about Trident replacement is that, if the nuclear deterrent is to be retained, and it definitely should, the replacement of the Vanguards is the only way to go, and four boats should be acquired for the role. 3 risks being not enough, and it wouldn’t generate that much saving, since the last ship of a class is always the least expensive, the cost of the other 3 boats will rise with cost of the building spread on less hulls, and the reduced capability would make the saving obtained irrilevant.
However, if Trident is to be funded by the core MOD budget, then the only option is to SCRAP the nuclear deterrent. The cuts the conventional forces already have to take are horrific, and no more cuts can be sustained. The nuclear deterrence is the only one thing we can expect to reasonably receive from NATO: while NATO would likely leave the UK alone once more in a Falklands-like conventional scenario, a nuclear war would certainly force France and US to employ their own nukes. No stands idle in front of nuclear attacks, because if someone is mad enough to launch one, then everyone is at risk.
Again, it is hard to imagine someone ready to verify if the US are TRULY ready to retaliate against a nuke launched at their allies. You wouldn’t risk that, and probably not even Hitler would have run such a risk. (probably, though, not SURELY).
Scrapping Trident would still have a MASSIVE political and prestige damage to the UK (it would also cause thousands of jobs and lots of skills to be lost, even if no one points it out) and it would also imply tens of billions of pounds for the closure of Aldermaston, the scrapping of Vanguards, the disposal of 200 warheads and lots of other stuff. In the short term, thus, we’d spend more to scrap the detterent than to keep it.
However, i must stress again that the conventional armed forces are going to be inexorably far more active (note i say ACTIVE, not USEFUL: Trident is plenty useful, and who stupidly says “we will never use it” fails to realize that the use of Trident is to ensure we never have a need for a nuclear war, and thus never need to use Trident itself. That’s how the 65 years of “peace” that have followed the IIWW have been ensured) That’s what deterrence is about. Otherwise, it would be called “holocaust”) than Trident, and thus no more cuts are acceptable.
As to the replacement options, the 2006 White Paper was very clear and honest, and i totally agree with its analysis:
1) Land based ICBM are extremely expensive, more than Trident. But moreover, there’s not a single place in the UK where silos (or mobile launchers anyway) could be planted with nukes without the population throwing a fit about it. This option has already been put forward and scrapped uncountable times.
2) Supersonic cruise missile: first you’d have to develop one, and be aware that politically you cannot have the same missile armed with nukes and conventional warhead. It would be a nuke alone, that you’d have to design, produce, acquire and maintain. The risk is the cost of the program spiraling out of control, and it would not be a surprise. Besides, it would have not just to be very fast and possibly stealth, but it should have RANGE. More than the range of the Tomahawk. And in the western world such a missile does not exist and there never was an attempt to buy such a piece of engineering tech. I can see lots of things going bad during development and the program being scrapped well before producing a missile that would be horribly expensive anyway.
3) Scalp, Storm Shadow, Tomahawk or even BramHos based nuclear missiles are not going to be feasible, because the US, France, Russia and India would never allow the UK to have a nuke mounted on missiles they use for all sorts of conventional tasks, with the risks connected to it.
4) UCAV with missiles/nuke bombs. You’d have to design, produce, acquire and sustain both systems, and depending on what are the requirements of the UCAV (ideally intercontinental range, for example, to properly ensure that Trident is decently replaced, plus stealthness) the cost goes up massively. Let’s not even talk of the opposition to have drones with nukes when there’s so much bitching against fearing simple Hellfire missiles!
5) Build a new vessel in collaboration with the french: possibly the same as following US on the current path of collaboration, with the added problem that, while UK has different time needs than US with replacement of Ohio (which will lasts longer than Vanguards since more submarines meant less usage of each of their hulls). There would be savings? Probably not at all. We’d also have to acquire and use french missiles.
6) Using a cruise missile tipped with nukes on Astutes is possible? At the very least, new stowage security measures and possibly modifications to weaponry stowage on the subs would be required.
Again, politically it might not be that feasible to have SSNs at sea with nuclear missiles. After all, as people so loves to say, “cold war is over”.
If problems with nuke-armed Astutes exist, new submarines will be required anyway, and the savings completely vanish all of a sudden. New subs+new warheads+developing new cruise missile = most likely higher cost than Trident.
As for Trident, the UK currently only LEASES a bunch of US Trident II D5 missiles, armed with UK owned, Uk-engineered warheads expected to last to the 2020 at least.
Trident II D5 is expected to last up to 2025 with an upgrade program planned by the USA that the UK could partecipate in, possibly extending the life of its warheads to 2025.
After the 2025, Trident II D5 is expected to be replaced by Trident II E6, new design, more modern and with less warheads. A new UK warhead will have to be designed for it, or the precedent warheads will move from D5 to E6 if they will have already been changed/upgraded.
Design of the 12-tubes missile compartment for the new subs is already going on as joint work between US and UK, which should ensure that the UK has to spend the lowest possible amount on this work.
All things considered, i doubt that there’s an option less expensive and more practical than Trident, while it is most evident that many proposed solutions aren’t half as effective as Trident is.
Most alternatives would be new paths that the UK would have to explore by itself, and the most likely outcome would be tremendously expensive… if not unfeasible at all.
Liger30You learned something with some dealy or still have to do so. Britain is no longer responsible for its own Empire gone after WW2. Britain is a medium size partner in a strong alliance named NATO with all the related benefits from that in defence burden. The related economic gains will allow Britain to boost its share if the need may arise. It is never a clever idea to have surplus numbers of ageing items at the same time in peacetime. We can agree that a core-force of well trained personal is much more important should the need for surplus capabilities arise. 😎
The issue being that in an increasingly technical and complex environment it is harder and harder to regenerate capabilities, you always need to ensure some kind of pilot light capability, otherwise the skill base simply atrophies.
Also, the myth of “generate capabilities” in case of need is largely an illusion.
A ship of any kind can’t be rapidly “regenerated”.
Crews for mothballed tanks, provided there’s at least a brigade still active, can be readied, but it would still take MONTHS. The “RAPIDLY” we are talking about is still measured in months we may not have.
Second myth: “we can buy things cheaply and rapidly with UORs”
This is also a myth, and two UORs explain it better than anything else: the Light Patrol Protected Vehicle is universally accepted as very urgent UOR. We heard of it the first time perhaps two years ago by now (in some way, actually, the need was pointed out already as far back as 2006) and despite it being “urgent” it is still NOT in sight.
Again, the vaunted TALISMAN anti-IED system. First time it was announced was early 2008. It came on front line this month in afghanistan.
2 years is not what i call “rapidly”. And it was not cheap either.
I find the “regeneration” tactic is very risky, and should be used with massive prudence, and in many sectors it is not viable at all.
There’s no way to regenerate Aircraft Carriers, SSNs, anphibious capabilities.
There’s not even way to EXPAND them, if not in years, if the assets have to be built, or at the very least MONTHS if it is about crews.
That would still be of arguable value since they’d have only basic training, no experience and wouldn’t even have faced a major exercise.
Crisis normally don’t give you time to prepare much more than you have: the Sea King AEW came when the Falklands war was practically over. Yet, the RN was working on it from BEFORE the crisis started, and the urgency was incredible as ships started being sunk. Yet, it was impossible to bring it in line fast enough.
And i’d like to be told honestly what’s so abundant in the UK armed forces to be considered a surplus.
Most capabilities are already coming in numbers that are far smaller than those required:
7 (5?) SSNs against a stated minimum needed of 8 and a planned target of 10
6 Type 45 against a need for 12
Not enough men to be able to properly rotate units deployed in Afghanistan without stretching the ranks thin
and so along…
So, let’s be rational in our thinking.
And seen that all armed forces in NATO are shrinking and everyone says “we’ve allies who can do that work”, we may have to all start thinking about what allies we are talking about, and be careful not to lose capabilities entirely as many nations end up cutting the same arms.
Either way, NATO isn’t the answer to everything: Falklands were british territory. NATO was forced to intervene in support, in theory. Did it move…?
NO.
You sure next time will be any different?
Afghanistan is also a NATO operation. How many times France, Germany, Italy and all the others have been asked to step up their contribution, employ more helos, engage more actively in the fighting…
Did they do that? NO.
These are facts no one points out, but are facts.
Liger30I suspect once Cottesmore is closed, Wittering may be a little vital for the Harrier force!:)
Indeed, and it also make it an ideal location for the MoD to make a little bit of money with the civilian business/VIP traffic there. It’d be interesting to see through FoI how much money we make offering the use of the airfield in such a capacity.
But Cottersmore is indeed to close, or that plan has been abandoned for now? If the Tornado goes and the Harrier stays, things may be different than planned earlier.
And that may be a good idea to exploit Northolt. But is it an actual plan?
Liger30you know this whole trident issue?
would smaller subs with less missiles based on astute actually be cheaper than they are perhaps budgeting for? In so far as, was the original cost for Trident replacement worked out on a like for like basis i wonder?
perhaps overseas aid should work on the basis of the UK tax payer stumping up when its needed (like is happening with the pakistan floods- £4m in donations in 48 hours from the public).
Kind of like a UOR….
Ignore that last point, i was just trying to demonstrate that there are plenty of British citizens who think its worth helping countries overseas…
I know well the Trident issue, i read the 2006 White Paper on the replacement of Trident and i’ve posted many info about that.
I don’t talk because i’ve a mouth, but because i know what i say.
And as to lots of people who think aid is worth, i must counter that so many others think it is worthless. That means nothing.
Personally, i think that UK spends too much on aid, and i believe it is absurd to ringfence it (actually, all but INCREASE it) and at the same time cry that the budget is unaffordable and slash department’s budgets that are far, far, far more relevant to the UK well being.
Liger30God bless this man.
“Uk oversea aid could pay for Trident”. Oh, yeah, it easily could. And it was time someone pointed it out loud and firm.
Liger30Well my idea of a worst case senario now looks pretty good compared to what is now being banded about.
Mine as well. The telegraph article completely astonished me.
I was expecting to see Tornado going, perhaps 8 minesweepers, to keep one only kind of them too, and Tranche 3B erased plus some cuts to top brass, mothballing of a lot of heavy armor, moving Nimrod to Waddington to close Kinloss and some reduction in troop numbers, perhaps with Marines moving closer to the army, but for sure NOT with reductions in anphibious ships and thus power projection capability.
I also expected Typhoon to be relatively safe, if not for perhaps 24 Tranche 1 that could be sold to Oman in a few months time. But throw away all the Tranche 1 planes…? That’s more extreme than i thought. Unless of course, the MOD is planning in an optic that foresees avoiding the economic pain to british aerospace industry coming from building less Typhoons and that wants to ensure the UK escapes any penalty, and thus they plan to sacrifice the T1 to buy part of the planned Tranche 3B later and complete the orders by giving away the UK-planned planes to other customers.
From 232 to 107 planes, it is well more than 50% cut, it’s monstrous.
The loss of 2 SSNs and anphibious ships is the option that scares me the most however, and the one i truly hope is not picked up.
Unless the 2 SSNs to go are two Trafalgars to retire earlier, but with new Astutes ensured all the way to boat 7. Then it is for sure the case to accept the cut with a smile. But if the cut must be intended as long term and definitive, with only 5 Astutes to come, it is a disaster. The First Sea Lord was almost begging for 8, and he made very clear that he can’t do all the tasks required to the navy’s SSNs with less than 8 boats.
With 5, lots of commitments would be out of reach.
Also, i’d like to know why the Marines, the most important infantry unit of the country, can be risked in such a move while no one proposes to move the RAF regiment into the Army. RAF regiment that recently obtained another 175 men squadron, the 58°, to be formed in Waddington, plus an expeditionary HQ wing of 15 officers, based in Leuchars.
For sure it would be easier to do that, and there would be no Force and Airfield Protection loss in terms of capability. Formally, the ethos and names of the units could still be linked to RAF too, but certainly some savings are possible.
Again, i’d also cancel the Puma upgrade and phase out the chopper, move all Merlins to Culdrose and close Benson.
Later, as the Merlin HC3 and HC3A come in to replace the Commando Sea King, eventually even Yeonvilton may be in discussion if ALL the Merlin are to be supported in Culdrose.
And there’s lots of other RAF stations that the UK could do well without. For example, Wittering. With the patetic number of Harries left, is it truly needed as “support base” for the Harrier Force…?
Northolt is truly justified just because it is closer to London and thus a comfortable nest for the VIP transport 32° “The Royals” Squadron…?
As to the PFI initiatives… 13 billions for a new academy in Wales are an obviously alluring target. Same goes for the SAR contract.
The SAR however will have to come later on, to ensure that all Sea Kings can effectively be phased out so that another mainteinance line goes off.
And it would make more sense to buy Merlins for the SAR work, and not S92, helicopter comparable in kind that would merely add yet another mainteinance and training line that we don’t need.
Merlin is the SAR choice in many european countries (soon in Germany as well, they plan to buy 12 for SAR and C-SAR, Italy ideam, Denmark and so along), and it would make sense to stick to the same chopper for as many tasks it can cover.
Liger30I not normally more optimistic than you but if I was going to guess the future then most of what the Telegraph said I would count as true, I would also start putting money on four squadrons of F/A-18’s, plus an OCU and attrition spares being the shape of the naval strike element – as nothing anyone has said to me can convince me that Liam Fox can get the Treasury to understand the implications of the change (F-35 to F/A-18), and that all they will see is that F-35B is looking more and more like it will be in the region of twice as expensive to buy as an F/A-18.
I would expect to see maybe 6 C1’s and 6 – 8 C2’s and that the rest of the 1:1 replacement of the 22 escorts will be a top end of the proposed C3 design, with minesweeper fleet rolled into this force (so technically it is a cut 🙂 ). I expect the SSBM replacement will come out of core MoD budget and therefore the cut will be closer to 10% not 20%, and that they will replace 4 SSBM’s with 3 smaller SSBM’s on a stretched Astute hull with minimum number of Trident missiles – say a 4 or 6 VLS block.
I would be surprised if they do not postpone or cancel FRES utility and a lot of other Army equipment will be brought in reduced numbers, later than needed with the UOR system being formularised as the method to buy of the shelve equipment as and when the Army needs it for operations.
Still saying all that the MoD is meant to be presenting it’s finalised plans to the National Security Council and the cuts should be in line with the NSC and some of the cuts might change or be rescinded, plus there is a feeling that if the MoD generates enough public backing George Osborne will back down.
If I was on the NSC I would base the UK strategy on being able do home defence, protect the South Atlantic, and then for expeditionary operations move to be able to deploy one small force of say a maximum of 750 troops, with sufficient vehicles, sea or air lift, helicopters and fighters and refuelling/replenishment if needed for the basis of humanitarian missions, protection of British civilians in conflict zones (i.e. embassy protection), and for stabilisation missions with a maximum duration of 6 months, but make it clear that the UK will not be involved in large scale deployments outside the UK or our overseas dependencies for the foreseeable future and if another Iraq or Afghanistan comes along we can join in with the US to kick down the doors (i.e. carrier strike, use our new Joint Commando Force to hold an port or airfield for a week or two) but once that is done someone else can go and hold the ground.
750 troops is too little…
Infantry battalions will be increased from about 600 troops to 750
A single battalion deployment is not enough even for a serious disaster relief operation, let along for any military operation more complex than Operation Barras against the West Side Boys.
The strategy you outline is my favorite one, however, and is what has been named “Strategic Raiding”. However, the 3rd Commando Brigade would be the basic expeditionary unit in my own vision, nothing smaller than that. That would make the capability of the UK to project power far more credible, and it is nothing that the UK can’t handle.
Ideally, i’d like an army smaller and more… Commandos like. Easier to deploy and sustain, centered around professional infantry and supported by smaller armored vehicles easier to deploy. It would still be capable to conduct “shock and awe” operations, strategic raiding, and it could easily hold the ground as well when needed.
The fact that another military operation abroad won’t happen for quite some time unless it truly can’t be avoided is evident already. There’s no interest at all at maiming the CAPABILITY to carry out an operation abroad. It is enough to value more carefully when and how to intervene, and avoid taking responsibilities that can’t be handled.
Helmand could have been managed far better if the armed forces hadn’t been disgracefully forced to fight not one but two wars at once on a peacetime budget (a shrikinking one, besides).
And the focus should be the sea and projection for the sea. Britain has the need, the position, the experience and the interest to carry out protection of the sealanes and projection of power from the sea more than anyone else.
Focusing on continental, Heavy Armour ops was a very not british move, forced by the cold war scenario. But the UK had never before done that: even the IIWW was fought by the UK on the basis of a main Strategy that relied on the sea, even though the war was continental.
The current balance of forces is, admittedly, an abomination for the UK, and something that should be corrected.
Sign In
