General UK Defence Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Pretty impressive.

https://www.army.mod.uk/deployments/ste ... fender-24/

[Ian Hall]

https://t.co/31jzzbs12j

[Poiuytrewq]

Amazing how fast this is starting to unravel now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... -generals/
.

Army at risk of becoming ‘static land force’, chief tells generals…..In leaked letter, Gen Sir Patrick Sanders suggests ability to mount overseas campaigns is in jeopardy

Gen Sir Patrick’s letter has put him at odds with Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, on wokeism in the military

The head of the British Army has suggested that under-funding has left it in danger of becoming a “domestically-focused land force”, The Telegraph can reveal.

In a leaked letter, Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the Chief of the General Staff, suggested the Army’s ability to mount overseas campaigns was in jeopardy and the force’s “strategic resilience” was at risk.

Gen Sir Patrick also said he and senior officials “struggled to fully land our concerns” with the Ministry of Defence.

In the letter to former generals, with whom the Chief of the General Staff regularly consults, he wrote: “For some time, we have asset-sweated the military, compounded by a mismatch between ambition and resource that has been robustly addressed by both National Audit Office and Defence Select Committee reporting.

“Our strategic resilience is at risk, and we might inadvertently reduce ourselves to a smaller, static and domestically-focused land force. I am not sure that this is either the Army the nation needs, or the one that policymakers want.”

The Army chief’s comments follow his self-described “controversial speech” in January when he suggested Britain should “train and equip” a citizen army to prepare for a future land conflict.

Maj Gen Julian Thompson, who commanded Three Commando Brigade in the Falklands, said: “He is right to warn that we might soon be unable to fulfil our expeditionary or Nato commitments. That is truly shocking.”

Col Richard Kemp, who commanded British troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans and Northern Ireland, backed Gen Sir Patrick’s warning, saying that “our ability to conduct overseas operations is at risk” because of cuts.

“It is very worrying that given the multiple threats from China, Russia and Iran, our Armed Forces have been gutted of the resources required to fight effectively and to support our allies abroad,” he said.

Gen Sir Patrick’s letter also puts him at odds with Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, on “wokeism” in the military, and the MoD’s new housing initiative.

Under the initiative, personnel will be allocated houses according to family size rather than rank. It has been met with outrage by soldiers’ wives.

The letter from Gen Sir Patrick said there was “much to celebrate in the NAO [New Accommodation Offer], but I am concerned about some of the likely consequences”.

He described the policy as “a net positive for our people” but conceded that “there is an uncomfortable opportunity cost and for the most part, this will be felt by the Officer Corps”.

The letter continued: “This does present risk to the social fabric of the Army, and it diminishes the strength of the offer we provide to young officers, in particular. I and ECAB [executive committee of the Army board] feel it is as vital to look after our leadership as our soldiers, but we are not being heard.”

A petition set up by Army wives calling for a review of the policy has gained 16,000 signatures, warning that retention rates in the forces will continue to suffer if the policy goes through unchanged.

Between October 2022 and October 2023, the regular Armed Forces saw an influx of 10,470 new recruits, while 16,260 departed. Notably, the last quarter witnessed a record-breaking 792 Army officers opting for early departure.


Gen Thompson said: “Gen Sir Patrick is right to object to the abolition of housing allocation by rank because, if it is pushed through, he’ll lose his mid-rank commanders in short order; but he weakly goes along with it. Both the threat to strategic resilience and the mortal threat to morale from the woke housing policy changes are resigning matters.”

Gen Sir Patrick also defended the Army’s diversity policies following criticism from senior ex-servicemen that they were “woke” and affecting the forces’ operational effectiveness. He endorsed lowering security clearance checks for overseas recruits to boost diversity, a policy that Mr Shapps ruled out after it was disclosed by The Telegraph.

The general’s letter referred to reports around “wokeism”, and said: “I make no apology for seeking an Army that reflects the society we serve and creates an environment that best nourishes its moral component.”

However Col Kemp said it was “wrong to say his woke policies are popular with the majority of soldiers”, adding: “I regularly speak with serving personnel who are concerned with the adoption of radical policies on gender and race in the military, which are only accelerating our recruitment and retention problems.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “Our Armed Forces are always ready to protect and defend the nation, with more than £50billion being spent on defence this year alone.

“The Army is currently undergoing its largest transformation in 20 years, creating a more integrated, agile, and lethal force, fit to face up to current and future threats. Alongside this, £41 billion is being invested in equipment and support projects over the next 10 years to ensure the Army has the highest quality equipment for the battlefield.”

[topman]

No great surprise unfortunately, the writing has been on the wall for several years.

I'm not sure if it's started to bottom out yet. The government seem quite comfortable with what's happening.

[Poiuytrewq]

No great surprise unfortunately, the writing has been on the wall for several years.

I'm not sure if it's started to bottom out yet. The government seem quite comfortable with what's happening.

That comfort is being funded by American taxpayers. How long will the US public continue to agree to fund European defence whilst Euro countries spend 10 times the amount on healthcare and welfare as they do on defence?

If Trump is elected that comfortable feeling in Whitehall may be short lived.

Ben Wallace did a great job showcasing how small a military 2% GDP can actually maintain.

The clear message is that it isn’t enough.

[Tempest414]

No great surprise unfortunately, the writing has been on the wall for several years.

I'm not sure if it's started to bottom out yet. The government seem quite comfortable with what's happening.

Not just the Government but Westminster as a hole they are all still in peace time thinking however with this said we also know the MOD needs to do better with its budget

[SW1]

[Poiuytrewq]

Movement.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... n-housing/

[Poiuytrewq]

Surprise Surprise.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... in-budget/
.

MoD to be denied funding boost in Budget
News comes despite rising geopolitical tensions and senior military figures warning about state of Armed Forces.

Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, has said he has been seeking more money for the Armed Forces
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) will not get extra funding in the Budget next week, The Telegraph understands, despite military figures warning about the state of the Armed Forces.

Treasury figures will argue that tight public finances have limited the ability to announce new spending in the package of measures, to be unveiled on March 6.

The news blindsided some figures in the MoD when they were approached by The Telegraph on Monday. Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, had said he was seeking more money.

Former defence secretaries expressed surprise that, as countries across the world raise defence spending with geopolitical tensions increasing, no extra money will be announced.

But a Treasury insider pointed to the MoD funding rise last spring, when an extra £5 billion was given over two years, with another £2 billion a year extra for much of the rest of the decade.

Sir Gavin Williamson, the former Tory defence secretary, said: “What is becoming increasingly clear is that the threats that we face need and require Britain and its allies to step up what it does in terms of building both capability and mass within our Armed Forces.

“That is going to require additional money to grow the size of our Army, Navy and Air Force. Without doing that, we will be ill-equipped to face the challenges that our enemies are increasingly presenting us with.”

A second former Tory defence secretary said that “we need to keep new money flowing in”, adding of extra funding: “It isn’t discretionary – it is a must.”

Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, and Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, will this week continue to debate the package of measures to be announced in the Budget.

It could be the final Budget before the next general election, with Treasury insiders not expecting a final decision on whether to do another fiscal event in the autumn until summer.

Government figures close to discussions have indicated that the Treasury has less money than hoped to play with, given economic forecasts on reductions to government debt.

It means that instead of announcing increases in public spending, Mr Hunt is considering reducing the amount by which spending will rise in the years after the next election.

The Chancellor is looking at changing his assumption that spending on public services will rise at one per cent a year above inflation after the election to 0.75 per cent a year.

That would amount to unprotected government departments having to reduce their budget by a fifth by the end of the decade, something think tanks have likened to “austerity 2.0”.

The decision to focus on tax cuts, which the Treasury believes are needed to boost economic growth and help Tory re-election fortunes, rather than extra spending, helps explain the MoD decision.

A Treasury insider said: “The priority for this Budget is rewarding work and growing the economy and that means bringing forward growth-enhancing measures today. But any tax changes won’t be on the same scale as the Autumn Statement last year.”

Spending on each government department has already been detailed for this year and next year in a wider spending review done years ago by the Tory government.

Last spring, extra money was announced for the MoD on top of that, with £4.95 billion promised for this year and next.

A further £2 billion every year for the most of this decade was also announced to “improve the resilience and readiness of our conventional and nuclear forces”, as the Treasury previously put it.

But since then inflation has reduced more slowly than hoped, having a knock-on impact on the overall MoD budget.

Last week, The Telegraph revealed last week how the department had ordered an effective two-month ban on capital spending until the new financial year given the tight funding situation.

The Telegraph also reported that Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the Chief of the General Staff, suggested that under-funding has left the Army in danger of becoming a “domestically-focused land force”.

Gen Sir Patrick wrote in a letter to former generals: “For some time, we have asset-sweated the military, compounded by a mismatch between ambition and resource that has been robustly addressed by both National Audit Office and Defence Select Committee reporting.

“Our strategic resilience is at risk, and we might inadvertently reduce ourselves to a smaller, static and domestically-focused land force. I am not sure that this is either the Army the nation needs, or the one that policymakers want.”

The Treasury does not comment on reports about possible Budget measures.

[Scimitar54]

Failure to adequately fund Defence in the forthcoming budget should definitely become a resigning matter for both the Chancellor and the PM.

[SW1]

Surprise Surprise.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... in-budget/
.

MoD to be denied funding boost in Budget
News comes despite rising geopolitical tensions and senior military figures warning about state of Armed Forces.

Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, has said he has been seeking more money for the Armed Forces
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) will not get extra funding in the Budget next week, The Telegraph understands, despite military figures warning about the state of the Armed Forces.

Treasury figures will argue that tight public finances have limited the ability to announce new spending in the package of measures, to be unveiled on March 6.

The news blindsided some figures in the MoD when they were approached by The Telegraph on Monday. Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, had said he was seeking more money.

Former defence secretaries expressed surprise that, as countries across the world raise defence spending with geopolitical tensions increasing, no extra money will be announced.

But a Treasury insider pointed to the MoD funding rise last spring, when an extra £5 billion was given over two years, with another £2 billion a year extra for much of the rest of the decade.

Sir Gavin Williamson, the former Tory defence secretary, said: “What is becoming increasingly clear is that the threats that we face need and require Britain and its allies to step up what it does in terms of building both capability and mass within our Armed Forces.

“That is going to require additional money to grow the size of our Army, Navy and Air Force. Without doing that, we will be ill-equipped to face the challenges that our enemies are increasingly presenting us with.”

A second former Tory defence secretary said that “we need to keep new money flowing in”, adding of extra funding: “It isn’t discretionary – it is a must.”

Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, and Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, will this week continue to debate the package of measures to be announced in the Budget.

It could be the final Budget before the next general election, with Treasury insiders not expecting a final decision on whether to do another fiscal event in the autumn until summer.

Government figures close to discussions have indicated that the Treasury has less money than hoped to play with, given economic forecasts on reductions to government debt.

It means that instead of announcing increases in public spending, Mr Hunt is considering reducing the amount by which spending will rise in the years after the next election.

The Chancellor is looking at changing his assumption that spending on public services will rise at one per cent a year above inflation after the election to 0.75 per cent a year.

That would amount to unprotected government departments having to reduce their budget by a fifth by the end of the decade, something think tanks have likened to “austerity 2.0”.

The decision to focus on tax cuts, which the Treasury believes are needed to boost economic growth and help Tory re-election fortunes, rather than extra spending, helps explain the MoD decision.

A Treasury insider said: “The priority for this Budget is rewarding work and growing the economy and that means bringing forward growth-enhancing measures today. But any tax changes won’t be on the same scale as the Autumn Statement last year.”

Spending on each government department has already been detailed for this year and next year in a wider spending review done years ago by the Tory government.

Last spring, extra money was announced for the MoD on top of that, with £4.95 billion promised for this year and next.

A further £2 billion every year for the most of this decade was also announced to “improve the resilience and readiness of our conventional and nuclear forces”, as the Treasury previously put it.

But since then inflation has reduced more slowly than hoped, having a knock-on impact on the overall MoD budget.

Last week, The Telegraph revealed last week how the department had ordered an effective two-month ban on capital spending until the new financial year given the tight funding situation.

The Telegraph also reported that Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the Chief of the General Staff, suggested that under-funding has left the Army in danger of becoming a “domestically-focused land force”.

Gen Sir Patrick wrote in a letter to former generals: “For some time, we have asset-sweated the military, compounded by a mismatch between ambition and resource that has been robustly addressed by both National Audit Office and Defence Select Committee reporting.

“Our strategic resilience is at risk, and we might inadvertently reduce ourselves to a smaller, static and domestically-focused land force. I am not sure that this is either the Army the nation needs, or the one that policymakers want.”

The Treasury does not comment on reports about possible Budget measures.

Don’t know why you’re surprised. As I have said defence needs to sort itself out with its already reasonable large budget.

With the tax take at its largest since the ww2. There spending more than even Labour governments do

[Repulse]

Even if more money was thrown into the defence bucket it wouldn’t be able to spend it effectively. Much better would be for defence to argue for specific funding for UOR projects, whilst sorting out its house (or literally houses).

[Poiuytrewq]

…..already reasonable large budget.

It is true that the U.K. has maintained a larger budget than other Euro countries over a sustained period but all of European defence has been massively subsidised by the US for decades.

IMO, regardless of who becomes the 47th President the US will start to implement a withdrawal from Europe. It’s no longer politically toxic in the US to propose it.

The U.K. should be proactive and take the initiative. The U.K. should strive to reach an agreement, long before the US election, to get EURO NATO members to commit to 2.5% or 3% of GDP making that the new de facto NATO spending target.

The US will either start to withdraw slowly or much more abruptly but the withdrawal and relocation of assets to the Pacific is inevitable. The preemptive funding agreement between Euro NATO members should ensure the possibility of an abrupt withdrawal becomes the least likely outcome.

With the tax take at its largest since the ww2. There spending more than even Labour governments do

Yes but not on Defence.

The funding has been diverted and now the idea of redirecting it back to where it once was is unthinkable.

All of the talk of conscription is an effort to slowly nudge public opinion back to accepting more funding needs to be spend on defence.

[SW1]

…..already reasonable large budget.

It is true that the U.K. has maintained a larger budget than other Euro countries over a sustained period but all of European defence has been massively subsidised by the US for decades.

IMO, regardless of who becomes the 47th President the US will start to implement a withdrawal from Europe. It’s no longer politically toxic in the US to propose it.

The U.K. should be proactive and take the initiative. The U.K. should strive to reach an agreement, long before the US election, to get EURO NATO members to commit to 2.5% or 3% of GDP making that the new de facto NATO spending target.

The US will either start to withdraw slowly or much more abruptly but the withdrawal and relocation of assets to the Pacific is inevitable. The preemptive funding agreement between Euro NATO members should ensure the possibility of an abrupt withdrawal becomes the least likely outcome.

With the tax take at its largest since the ww2. There spending more than even Labour governments do

Yes but not on Defence.

The funding has been diverted and now the idea of redirecting it back to where it once was is unthinkable.

All of the talk of conscription is an effort to slowly nudge public opinion back to accepting more funding needs to be spend on defence.

The US has been asking European allies to spend what nato declares as needed for collective defence ie 2% of gdp. We do slightly more than that others much worse.

We have massively subsidised the US both politically and militarily in its adventures these past 20 years so I’ll take no lectures from them.

We spend enough to robustly defend the uk and its territories many do it with considerably less than we spend.


Talk of conscription was just bollox to get a headline. I didn’t see what the general was proposing cutting within his own budget to set up the necessary infrastructure to enable conscription if he thought it so important. Pie in the sky thinking instead of focus on the elephant in the room.

[Poiuytrewq]

The US has been asking European allies to spend what nato declares as needed for collective defence ie 2% of gdp. We do slightly more than that others much worse.

We have massively subsidised the US both politically and militarily in its adventures these past 20 years so I’ll take no lectures from them.

We spend enough to robustly defend the uk and its territories many do it with considerably less than we spend.

As long as the US is providing most of the rest.

Without the US, Europe as a whole will have to collectively spend much much more to retain the same deterrent effect.

[Repulse]

Total defence spend excluding the US is in the order of $400bn, five times that of Russia. For me the key issue isn’t money, it’s ensuring that there is the right mix of capabilities - to make it work not all countries can be mirrors of each other with similar (relatively low level) kit.

This is why the UK needs to focus less on mass and more on ensuring it has the quality high end kit and enablers that the US brings. The same can be said for France.

As SW1 says, to defend the UK and BOTs we don’t need to spend as much as we do now, therefore in my simple mind anything above this needs to be spent on tier one capabilities.

[SW1]

The US has been asking European allies to spend what nato declares as needed for collective defence ie 2% of gdp. We do slightly more than that others much worse.

We have massively subsidised the US both politically and militarily in its adventures these past 20 years so I’ll take no lectures from them.

We spend enough to robustly defend the uk and its territories many do it with considerably less than we spend.

As long as the US is providing most of the rest.

Without the US, Europe as a whole will have to collectively spend much much more to retain the same deterrent effect.

What rest are you referring to? If your referring to Russia the means to deter remains and its principally thru the nuclear deterrent and those in Europe who are buying f35a with the tactical nuclear sharing program being the main driver.

If you get into where money could be diverted and prob reducing pure front line to replace US presence, I would suggest it would be industrial resilience, strategic logistics, ISR, comms, special forces, intelligence services and in general diplomatic and political leadership and I don’t see anyone suggesting we do that.

[Poiuytrewq]

What rest are you referring to?

All US military assets in Europe.

If Biden can pull out of Afghanistan, Trump can most definitely, at least partially, pull out of Europe.

Euro NATO must start hedging now.

[SW1]

What rest are you referring to?

All US military assets in Europe.

If Biden can pull out of Afghanistan, Trump can most definitely, at least partially, pull out of Europe.

Euro NATO must start hedging now.

I’m sure he can. His choice.

But I go back to the list of where funding needs to go and if they wish to pull of Europe don’t be expecting European nato to be providing any forces to help them diplomatically or otherwise anywhere else.

[Poiuytrewq]

…..don’t be expecting European nato to be providing any forces to help them diplomatically or otherwise anywhere else.

That’s the conundrum.

Pull out of Europe and the loss of influence may never be fully recovered even by a subsequent administration.

Don’t pull out of Europe and not enough mass can be concentrated in the Western Pacific to deter aggression.

Either way there is no win-win scenario for the US.

[SW1]

…..don’t be expecting European nato to be providing any forces to help them diplomatically or otherwise anywhere else.

That’s the conundrum.

Pull out of Europe and the loss of influence may never be fully recovered even by a subsequent administration.

Don’t pull out of Europe and not enough mass can be concentrated in the Western Pacific to deter aggression.

Either way there is no win-win scenario for the US.

The US has plenty of mass in the western Pacific.

[new guy]

What rest are you referring to?

All US military assets in Europe.

If Biden can pull out of Afghanistan, Trump can most definitely, at least partially, pull out of Europe.

Euro NATO must start hedging now.

Trump was the one who pulled out of Afghanistan, by the time Biden came into office there wasn't much he could do.

[topman]

[tomuk]

Who put double glazing in that house without retrofitting lintels?

[SW1]

This was filmed 8 years ago, but watching in the context of where we are today it’s probably more pertinent.