Let's have a proper men In sheds type of discussion then shall we. I bet it's one you lot will have a good bit to say about.
What do you think the UK's realistic military capabilities are in current year? Is the UK still a significant global player? Or are our resources even adequate to defend the island from our potential enemies?
I've come across a few discussions on other places and it seems like there's a bit of a polarised opinion here. There's a lot who seem to think that while obviously, the US, Russia and China dwarf us in terms of size, we're still one of the hardest countries around, punching well above our weight. But that feels to me like a cope. To me it looks like we've cut our military just about as near to the bone as we can while still being able to say we have one, and that if we should ever have to defend ourselves, we might find ourselves in pretty deep shit.
Moreover, as an island nation that still aspires to global reach and influence, could we really back that up if push came to shove? If Ukraine went hot, how much help could we really give (discounting nuclear armageddon, obviously)? If the Aregntinians decided they fancy a rematch, do we still have the capability to respond? What if China went mad and invaded Australia, would we have their back?
Obviously, there's people who believe we should spend even less on the armed forces, and that's fair, but for the sake of the discussion let's assume we're talking about the military in terms of a fundamentally necessary arm of the state, in terms of defending ourselves and ensuring we can uphold obligations to our allies. What do you reckon?
I'm sure everyone here is already aware, but in terms of an hostile nation trying to get ashore on the UK via a conventional invasion, that's pure fantasy land. Russia and China are our only real strategic adversaries and neither are capable for pretty obvious reasons. So, in terms of defending the British state from that kind of thing, it's fine. The armed forces are more than capable of stopping that.
In terms of deploying to a peer-to-peer conflict I actually have no idea how they'd operate. The US Army is currently restructuring and re-equipping with that very concern in mind, which is why they're using larger rounds in their new rifles, building M10 Booker (not) light tanks and completely and totally rethinking how a division would fight a conventional battle, after twenty years of operating more like the colonial garrisons of pre-WW1 Britain. My understanding is we're currently capable of deploying multiple Army brigades if we're looking at some of large-scale conventional conflict, IE, defending Ukraine or invading Iran or some other terrible idea. But we also have thousands of Royal Marines, a sizable number of special forces, a pretty big air force and at least one aircraft carrier ready to go at any point in time. While the finer details of how to employ and what the actual readiness of all of that is aren't really known to me, I don't think there's too much cause for concern with regards to the capabilities of the British Armed Froces.
Personally I'm more interested in how legitimate the recruitment problems are for the military, or if it's just a case of the people in charge thinking "we could always have more"? And, related to that issue, what's being to done regarding suicides, sexual assaults and "suicides" in the military? Because those are issues that seem to be persistent problems that I never really see addressed.
You're underestimating the sheer incompetence of our adversaries. We're one of the last countries to worry about a land-war yet British equipment has performed very well in Ukraine and we're one of the largest contributors to UA training. The sheer fact that 90% of the internet seems to have an ungodly hate-boner for anything to do with Britain's armed forces should be indicative of this.
The Army (and to lesser extent air force) have been starved of investment in recent years as the Royal Navy has taken prominence but it's not really a problem for an island nation that doesn't see itself doing much beyond deterrence in East Asia, anti-piracy patrols and thumping random training camps in the Middle East. Arguably we get caught in procurement bullshit and bad decisions (A FUCKING RAMP!) but we're still top-tier for R&D output and everyone wants to work with our fighter programme while the Europeans argue over who installs the cappuccino machine on theirs.
>If Ukraine went hot, how much help could we really give (discounting nuclear armageddon, obviously)?
Ukraine is already hot. But we have a lot of equipment put into defending NATO's eastern flank and the Royal Navy would busy itself saving Russian sailors once their ships promptly sink upon leaving port.
>If the Aregntinians decided they fancy a rematch, do we still have the capability to respond?
Argentina doesn't have the capability to launch an invasion and we've fortified the Falklands. This is the bogeyman that gets brought out to justify various eye-watering sums but it's absolute nonsense even at a cursory glance.
>What if China went mad and invaded Australia, would we have their back?
Yes. Obviously. But it would really involve joining a massive naval blockade while the US recreates the first Gulf War at sea. Where we'd be fucked is if we wanted to invade a random land power alone but that's never been our way of doing things.
>in terms of an hostile nation trying to get ashore on the UK via a conventional invasion, that's pure fantasy land
and
>The Army (and to lesser extent air force) have been starved of investment in recent years as the Royal Navy has taken prominence
Are interesting aspects of those replies to me. It seems obvious that the Royal Navy should be Britain's priority, as it always has been historically, but that's the part that has me thinking about all this in the first place.
a) How are we so sure we'll never face an old fashioned invasion?
b) Can we really be confident we've got the means to repel one?
The Royal Navy is surprisingly small, and I don't think many people actually bother to look it up. It's got something like two carriers, a dozen frigates, five destroyers and ten subs. On paper two carriers means we can say we are playing with the big boys, but that's just it isn't it. On paper. From what I have read, they will scarcely even be carrying a full compliment of aircraft between them.
That's the crux. The numbers of ships and manpower etc are neither here nor there in the grander scheme I suppose, but I am looking at this from a perspective similar to the NHS and its resilience in handling the pandemic, and how even the most devoted Telegraph reader can see plain as day now that the government had been neglecting to invest in the service for years. I'm sure we have some of the best servicemen in the world who would go hell for leather if they were needed, but is the institution itself robust enough, or has it been hollowed out like the rest of our public services?
>>461732 We've put a huge investment into our armed forces for a mid-tier power and it shows when you compare us to others. I don't see why you're missing this. The Government has definately not neglected the armed forces compared to other arms of government and even funds it differently to other parts of government to ensure it's budget cycle is long enough to plan ahead.
Yes, we have enough to repel an 'old fashioned invasion'. Partly because nobody capable of doing that and partly because a cornerstone of our defence strategy is our international network of alliances. If the vikings show up again we'll fuck them up good. In the unlikely event we're invaded by the rest of NATO then it gets complicated but we have Trident and our friends at the UN will send a sternly worded letter.
In fairness nobody is explaining it, only stating it as self evident. The Ukraine thing gave us a lot of headlines about apparent deficiencies and gaps, so I don't think its unreasonable to ask the question.
You're falling into the former camp OP mentioned where you say "yes we're dead hard obviously" without really providing much detail on why. That's the interesting stuff. What are we doing better than France or Germany, for instance?
I'm also generally of the opinion reliance on the Yanks is a strategic mistake. It's not like they don't have form for fucking over allies.
>>461734 This is a minute on google-tier. It is 'I spend my time browsing vatnik channels on twitter'-tier. There doesn't need to be much.
>The Ukraine thing gave us a lot of headlines about apparent deficiencies and gaps
Ukraine conclusively showed that:
1. British anti-tank weapons work and we can blow up submarines from far away.
2. Russia and its hypersonic weapons are a joke.
>I'm also generally of the opinion reliance on the Yanks is a strategic mistake
Then we'll rely on our other strategic allies who just so happen to all be dominating the top spots and that, like the US, we're so deeply integrated with that our defence is a strategic necessity. Are you that idiot who decided to call Ukraine the US Suez Crisis?
The question is unanswerable given that it lacks contextual information like who is being fought and what the rest of the world is doing, how people feel about the situation and so on.You can't just count the number of tanks and their HP, what are the logistics involved, to what degree can we use our ally's forward bases for support given their political disposition at the time? The winnability of any war relies on so much.
Actually it's funny you should say that when there's a lot of people in Ukraine who are quite unhappy how the US has immediately switched focus to Israel. But let's keep that to it's own thread.
Why so defensive though, lad, I'm not taking the piss out of your favourite football team here.
Logistics is absolutely vital and pretty much the entire thing modern wars boil down to, according to most books I've read. Which is why a lot of the procurement stuff should probably be more of a concern than people think it is.
We have a very capable, very experienced and very well-equipped expeditionary force. Our military expenditure is the sixth highest in the world. Thanks to Iraq and Svalbard, we have a lot of recent experience of actually fighting, but that is significantly biased towards counterinsurgency rather than near-peer conflict.
The British Armed Forces (particularly the Army) are unusually adaptable and resourceful, with tactical decision-making delegated down to the lowest possible level of leadership. Our NCOs and ratings are truly exceptional and are absolutely trusted by officers to get the job done. That's in line with NATO doctrine, but we really do set the standard to which the rest of NATO aspires. Everyone we work with is seriously impressed by the quality of our training, including the yanks.
Our military spending is the 6th highest in the world. We spend significantly more than any of our European peers, but our budget is completely dwarfed by China or the US. We piss some of it up the wall on ridiculous procurement boondoggles, but most of the budget is actually spent quite effectively. There are still questions about the effectiveness of the F-35 and our overall air power, but the rest of our kit is generally well-proven and trusted to get the job done.
Aside from the fact that we are a very small country compared to the two military superpowers, our biggest shortcomings are shared with the rest of NATO - we are too slow to adapt our strategic outlook and haven't seriously reviewed our overall readiness in light of changing global circumstances and the lessons gleaned from Ukraine. I am absolutely sure that most captains and WOs are watching what's happening in Ukraine with great interest and learning a great deal from it, but that can't be said at the highest levels of leadership.
We still don't have a serious programme to equip our infantry with the inexpensive drones that have completely reshaped the battlefield in Ukraine, nor a doctrinal approach to dealing with the realities of a battlefield where nothing can be hidden from the enemy. We haven't seriously ramped up our production of artillery shells, or started to build up a reserve of industrial capacity that could be repurposed at short notice to produce vast quantities of ordnance. China have spent a lot of time, money and effort developing really effective anti-ship ballistic missiles, but we don't have the slightest outline of a plan for fighting a full-scale war in which naval power is completely nullified. We habitually prepare for the war that our doctrine says we want to fight, not the range of scenarios that could play out based on the potential capabilities of our adversaries; we weren't prepared for the realities of war in Svalbard and we aren't prepared for the realities of a direct or proxy conflict with China, who are the only serious threat to the overall security of NATO.
The Chinese People's Liberation Army is vast, but it has long had the reputation of being a low-quality conscript army that isn't trained or equipped for modern combat. That has been changing rapidly in recent years, with a significant reduction in active manpower against a vast increase in overall spending. This is visible at every level, from the development of fifth-generation fighter aircraft to the mass issue of modern personal equipment (modular rifles, ballistic plate carriers etc) to the infantry.
To some extent, the shortcomings of the PLA are a mirror image of the ours - their senior leadership has a very shrewd understanding of the strategic realities of modern conflict, but the rank-and-file are still largely operating in an old Soviet mindset with very limited autonomy, substandard NCOs and a lack of practical combat experience or realistic training.
I feel confident in saying that a British private is worth three or four Chinese privates. We shouldn't be too complacent about that however, because although military reform is inherently slow, the Chinese are deadly serious about getting it done. I don't expect them to catch up with us in terms of quality within the foreseeable future, but they could get close enough to really pose a credible threat to NATO before the end of the decade.
With NATO and the UN and the general attitude that war, war is stupid, I think most countries have been relaxing a little bit in terms of military preparedness. Everyone was shocked when Russia invaded Ukraine, and that was because these sorts of wars happen much less often than they used to. So I can easily believe that the British Army might not be the force it once was, but neither is any other army so we're still just as good as we used to be. Only the Americans are really truly gay for war, and they're on our side. China and Russia and North Korea are similarly passionate, but they're not doing a very good job of it. I'm going to say we're safe. Our rickety tanks and empty guns will smash the shit out of France or Germany's equivalent middle-aisle-of-Lidl hardware.
>>461738 >We still don't have a serious programme to equip our infantry with the inexpensive drones that have completely reshaped the battlefield in Ukraine,
Materially wrong, so much is happening on this front
Cheap drones were already a proven tech thanks to Libya and personal ouchie ones had been in the pipeline for awhile even before that. I actually wonder if people got the original idea from Half Life 2 or if even then people were thinking about it.
I strongly disagree. The key words in my statement are "serious programme" and "inexpensive".
Ukraine are losing more than 10,000 drones per month - mostly "kamikaze" drones (i.e. improvised loitering munitions) but also losses of observation drones to electronic and kinetic countermeasures. They're basically fine with this, because a) the drones are cheap and b) they're procured from consumer electronics manufacturers who are perfectly capable of supplying those quantities on short lead times.
The link given by >>461948 points to the problem in our procurement - we're buying comparatively expensive drones in quantities of tens or hundreds from established defense suppliers. We've cottoned on to the idea that drones are useful, but there's nothing in our procurement strategy to suggest that we've learned anything from Ukraine. As per usual with British military procurement, there's a lot of money and effort going towards ambitious and futuristic projects that might eventually deliver something amazing in 10 years, but very little going towards procuring the best of what's commercially available right now, securing optionality for future supplies in even bigger quantities and figuring out how to use it effectively at scale.
We don't need 20 different contracts to buy handfuls of drones, we need one big contract to secure a supply of the crucial semiconductor components that isn't dependent on China or Taiwan. We don't have a strategy for procuring drones on the scale that Ukraine are using them and we certainly don't have a plan for doing that if the Chinese decide that they aren't going to sell us GPS and wireless chips. We're procuring drones in a way that is basically adequate for an expeditionary force, but we don't have a plan for if the shit hits the fan.
>>461950 >The link given by >>461948 points to the problem in our procurement - we're buying comparatively expensive drones in quantities of tens or hundreds from established defense suppliers.
The article literally linked to the D40 drones that, again, British forces have already used in Mali. Contrary to the name DefendTex is an Aussie company and one that is being used by NATO to supply Ukraine - an area the Aussies are doing really well at but it's not like we're expecting World War Roo anytime soon.
>As per usual with British military procurement, there's a lot of money and effort going towards ambitious and futuristic projects that might eventually deliver something amazing in 10 years, but very little going towards procuring the best of what's commercially available right now, securing optionality for future supplies in even bigger quantities and figuring out how to use it effectively at scale.
This work is being led by the US Replicator programme that everyone else bolts onto.
>The article literally linked to the D40 drones that, again, British forces have already used in Mali. Contrary to the name DefendTex is an Aussie company and one that is being used by NATO to supply Ukraine
DefendTex have a staff of 60. They sent 300 Drone40s to Ukraine on their own initiative; I have seen no evidence that they have actually been used in anger. I don't want to say anything libellous, but anyone who takes DefendTex seriously should really look into the connections between Travis Reddy and David Van.
>This work is being led by the US Replicator programme that everyone else bolts onto.
>>461951 All you need is a few ISISLads, knocking out drones 'inspired by tomahawk cruise missiles.
Fuck's sake, life in prison for _that_. And ownership of a 3D printer, clearly proof of something.
You'd not even want to mildly joke about such things if you've got a reasonably well equipped shed.
>>461951
Intelligence, logistics, financial acumen, market control, technology and the means to keep these strong is what matters in modern warfare. Men in trenches with stronk tonks isn't how it happens. These days it is technological dominance, combined with learned guerrilla tactics and adaptability that puts the UK up front. It wouldn't surprise me at all if UK tactics were involved in the opening stages of the war in Ukraine w/ doctrine for Eastern Germany / Fulda Gap in the Cold War. Pretty much hold up and fight for a few days until the allies arrive.
>>462178 >Intelligence, logistics, financial acumen, market control, technology and the means to keep these strong is what matters in modern warfare.
A lot of this was neatly demonstrated in the early days of the 2022 Russian offensive into Ukraine. They didn't have adequate intelligence about potential resistance, and their logistics operation was utterly pants. There's the parable of the painter getting too far from their pot that illustrates the logistical problem Russia had. They were going for a very long push, very quickly, with a very large force, when realistically that's very much a "pick any two" situation, because the "possibility frontier" of quantity of materiel vs. how quickly you can move it will absolutely bite hard if you exceed it.
Also what was all that nonsense I heard on the radio about bringing back conscription? Just what the zoomers need yer askin' me, they'll soon decide what gender they when they're gerrin shot at.
>>462593 Conscription does have some value if done properly, it's an extension of the already compulsory school system in a way. It's a vocational school, the shooty boomy part is just part of it.
However, the comparable places that still have conscription — I'd say Switzerland, the defunct German system, Finland, and Israel — there is also considerable infrastructure behind them. It's all well and easy to say "everyone should do basic training", it's quite another to pull that off, fund it, staff it, feed it, and all that jazz. Given the government's propensity to spectacularly fluff up large projects, I would suspect that any attempt to introduce it would turn into another PPE grift.
The Russian navy is massively hampered in the Black Sea, because Ukraine has a very effective drone programme. We have much better anti-missile technology than the Russians, but we don't have a proven countermeasure to sea drones. Ships are just much more vulnerable than they used to be and it's not clear that naval assets would be of much use in a near-peer conflict. Expanding the navy isn't a terrible idea, but it's hugely expensive and might not meaningfully improve out defensive posture. If we're learning lessons from Ukraine, then I think the obvious first choices would be a) massively increasing production of missiles, drones and artillery shells and b) significantly increasing manpower.
>Also what was all that nonsense I heard on the radio about bringing back conscription?
It's a fairly transparent bargaining tactic. We've had severe manpower shortages in the forces for years, but we haven't seriously addressed the issues that are limiting recruiting and retention. An extra 20,000 professionals sounds much more reasonable if your original ask was for mandatory conscription. Actually implementing conscription is a non-starter, because we just don't have a big enough military to do anything with all those conscripts. We ended National Service for basically this reason - our professionals were too busy with babysitting teenagers to do much of anything else. It might make sense to prepare ourselves to have the capacity to implement conscription, but that's a 5-10 year project, because you can't just pluck trained officers and NCOs out of thin air.
>It might make sense to prepare ourselves to have the capacity to implement conscription, but that's a 5-10 year project, because you can't just pluck trained officers and NCOs out of thin air.
How did we manage to go from a professional force of 200,000 to multi-million strong armies during WW1 and 2 then? I mean it put us into a fuckload of debt and arguably it didn't produce great soldiers or officers anyway, which is probably half the reason so many of them got blown to bits in the Somme and other such disastrous battles. But we managed it.
Or is it just the case that it was easier to give a bloke a rifle and train him to shoot at Jerries back then when warfare was less technological and complicated, and these days we'd need to invest a lot more than just putting them in olive drab and a tin hat and throwing them over the top?
Not that I am a supporter of the idea of conscription, but with the world seeming to get more and more tense by the year I think having a more robust army is sort of a reasonable idea. We already have the TA though, right? Isn't that already the same sort of thing as they were proposing?
>>462593 >Wondered what you chaps would make of this.
It is true and it isn't. Yes we are utterly and completely fucked for at least a century if we lose control of the North Sea but as the report touches on there is an enormous capability gulf between Russia and China and everyone they're trying to threaten. And nowhere is that more acute than at sea which I don't see changing, Russia can't pivot into its navy like we can and even if it could it's maritime industry is rusting a mess.
Of course the elephant in the room it doesn't also report on is how exactly we can deliver more capability at sea given where sacrifices would no doubt have to be made for it. And how NATO might police the artic ocean once it becomes a viable trade route but then you're in the realm of how to do protect trade with China from China.
>Also what was all that nonsense I heard on the radio about bringing back conscription?
Europe in general is swinging hard into deterring Russia at the minute and trying to work out how to fight a (near-)peer conflict which is why we're having massive exercises. Conscription would be political suicide and very expensive so we're just making noise about it.
>>462599 Not him but you can cut corners on conscription if you don't value human life. As Russia is proving. It's just not a very good idea for anyone unless you need a few bodies to lay down at a beach shouting bang without basics like medical care and ammunition.
>How did we manage to go from a professional force of 200,000 to multi-million strong armies during WW1 and 2 then?
We were better prepared for the First World War than people realise. We won the Second Boer War in 1902, but it was a humiliating victory because it took us two and a half years and a huge amount of blood and treasure to defeat a force that we outnumbered ten-to-one. The following decade saw massive reforms of the army, which meant that by 1914, the BEF were genuinely first-rate and we had a substantial reserve force (~450,000) who weren't necessarily well trained, but were ready for deployment in support roles at relatively short notice. We also tend to forget about the British Indian Army - they weren't particularly well trained or equipped, but they had enormous strength in numbers and were absolutely vital across multiple campaigns in the first half of the war.
That solid base gave us just enough of a head start, but we were still floundering into 1916. "Throwing men over the top" isn't an entirely fair characterisation, but it isn't also entirely inaccurate. The huge number of volunteers in 1914 completely overwhelmed the army; well into 1915, it was common for men to arrive in France without ever having worn a uniform or handled a rifle, simply due to the lack of spare equipment for training.
There was a clear understanding that the reservists and volunteers were largely making up the numbers rather than providing meaningful combat capability. "Cannon fodder" doesn't feel like the right phrase, but "human shields for the BEF" seems a bit closer to the mark. The descent into static, attritional trench warfare was in large part a result of the shortage of properly trained men and officers on both sides - something we're seeing mirrored in Ukraine today.
Recruitment and mobilisation in the Second World War played out rather differently, in large part because of the First World War. We had an abundance of men with strong military experience who were too old for the front lines but certainly young enough to deliver good quality training (at least by the standards of the day). Still, it took several years to build up a really serious fighting force and many lives were squandered due to a lack of preparation.
In both wars, we just barely squeaked through a lot of very tight spots that could have easily brought about our defeat. Hindsight bias means that we tend to see our victories in the world wars as inevitable, but it required an awful lot of good fortune.
Returning to the modern day, our army is now properly tiny. We've got ~80,000 regulars and ~25,000 reservists. If we had a force that small going into either of the world wars, we would have been completely fucked. When you add on the much greater training requirements to be truly effective in a combat role on a modern battlefield, and the huge range of skills needed to maintain and support all of the shiny kit that everyone now relies upon, then we're in a really vulnerable position. I also strongly suspect that we're just far less willing to tolerate high levels of casualties, even in a properly existential conflict. I don't think we have the stomach to send a load of conscripts to the front line in the hopes that they can hold out long enough for us to raise a real army.
I talk a lot with military types for my work and the few who have noted an opinion in this # of staff saga have all said that this was deliberate, as a part of the plan for higher automation
Not him, but there has been a decades-long ambition in NATO countries (particularly the US) to create a robot army that can project power around the world without putting your own men at risk. Aerial drones and unmanned tanks will go out and do the fighting, controlled via satellite by people in perfect safety thousands of miles away. American use of the MQ-1 Predator on the laplanderstan/Svalbard border is probably the clearest example of that strategy in practice.
The problem is that it has never been made to work in achieving military outcomes. You can see a lot from 60,000 feet up, but there's a lot that you can only see from ground level. The Taliban adapted to the ubiquity of death from the sky by retreating to caves; Hamas adapted by digging hundreds of miles of tunnels and hiding in civilian buildings. Tanks are incredibly powerful fighting machines, but they're also big and loud and not particularly manoeuvrable; this makes them incredibly vulnerable to ambush if they don't have close infantry support, as the Russians have learned to their cost in Ukraine. You can terrorise with drones, you can suppress a lot of military activity, but you can't take and control territory.
It isn't provably impossible, it might become more of a reality if you look at the trajectory that Anduril are following, but for the moment the idea of achieving significant military objectives without a lot of wellies in the mud is a pipe dream.
>>462620 Was going to make a separate thread in >>/emo/ about this but might as well leave it leave.
In Terminator 2 John Connor accepts that humans are self destructive and says "We're not gonna make it, I mean humans". Arnold replies in his thick Austrian accent "It is in your nature to destroy yourselves".
Kind of depressing that we could destroy our selves before we get a chance to reach for the stars.
>>462622 Reach for the stars
Climb every mountain higher
Reach for the stars
Follow your heart's desire
Reach for the stars
And when that rainbow's shining over you
That's when your dreams will all come true
>Kind of depressing that we could destroy our selves before we get a chance to reach for the stars.
Great Filter, innit. The idea that civilisations that become technologically advanced run the risk of using that technology to fight and wipe out themselves before managing to fully conquer space.
Which could go some way explaining why we haven't found evidence of alien civilisations. Maybe life itself isn't that rare in the Universe, but intelligent life almost always pisses it up the wall. And we're essentially still apes with nukes.
The Drake Equation already implies a Great Filter without directly arguing for it, especially the factors fc and L at the end, which look at the probability of alien civilisations releasing detectable signs of their existence into space, and doing so for a certain length of time. We have only broadcast ourselves into space for a little over a century. In cosmological terms, that's more than fleeting. And what if an advanced civilisation 500 light years from us that is capable of detecting our radio waves ceases to exist by nuking itself in 300 years from now. They'll never even know we exist. Or existed.
