The United Kingdom is no longer seen as a Tier One fighting force- so said a senior US general
in a private conversation with British defense secretary, Ben Wallace. Upon the news breaking,
the British public was outraged at the US- until defense analysts began to appear on
talk shows to explain that the assessment was in fact, correct. According to a British analyst,
the UK military was unable to protect its home islands, let alone help defend its allies.
How in the world did one of the world's most premier fighting forces get to a state where it
couldn't even defend its own homeland, and what would the UK do in case of a third global war?
While the UK military may be in a state of serious decline, the British government is at least much
more forward thinking than most of its European neighbors. Realizing that the war in Ukraine
presented Europe with two choices: support Ukraine in fighting Russia in Ukraine today,
or possibly fight Russia in central Europe later, the UK opted for the former and opened up its
armories to the Ukrainian military. Despite its military being in seriously short supply of air
defense missiles and anti-tank weapons, the UK nonetheless started shipping them to Ukraine
about as fast as it could load them on ships. Meanwhile, countries such as France, Germany,
Spain, and Portugal have all been reluctant to provide large amounts of equipment of their own,
stating that they need to be prepared to defend themselves in the future-
and this begs the question of, from what? With Russia struggling to hold on to east Ukraine,
it's incredibly unlikely they'll be marching T-72s into Madrid anytime soon.
But were the UK to find itself needing to fight Russia head on, the end result is very much in
question given the atrocious state of the modern British military. How did an elite fighting force,
America's most capable Cold War partner, turn into what allied soldiers in the middle east would call
'the borrowers', for their propensity to never have all the kit they needed for a mission?
Like most European powers, the UK fell prey to the Cold War peace dividend.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, Europe assumed that the new Russia would renounce
its historical ambitions for empire, beat all their AK-47s into plowshares,
and resolve all future conflicts with tactical hugs. Defense budgets dropped significantly,
and research and development, as well as procurement programs, all but atrophied.
Spending money on defense became a rude conversational topic, and political suicide
for any politician to even broach. War was best left to the neanderthal Americans, Europe had
established an impenetrable utopia defended almost entirely by good vibes no weapon could pierce.
On the one hand, it's hard to judge Europe for wanting to forget the absolute pants-browning
terror of the Cold War taking place in their own backyard. Americans were
always wary of World War III to the point of every other family building a fallout shelter,
but Europeans had to worry about the horror of either a nuclear or conventional war playing
out in their very living rooms. Europe was exhausted of war, hard to blame the continent
for wanting to reinvest massive- and arguably non-sustainable- defense budgets on other things.
But getting to a point where Britain's own politicans have said that the country only
has enough ammunition for a few days of fighting is downright criminal. And this is only the tip of
the iceberg, because also by their own admission the UK would be wholly incapable of defending
itself from the type of air attacks taking place in Ukraine, and if the nation wanted to field a
single division of 30,000 troops, it would take between five to ten years to equip them with
sufficient tanks, helicopters, and artillery. Of the tanks and infantry fighting vehicles it
does have, most are between three to six decades old and have no replacement in the pipeline. And
if the UK was called upon to support its NATO partners, 30% of its high readiness forces are
reservists who could never make NATO timelines for deployment, undermining the entire alliance.
The first signs of trouble came with the British commitment to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which many blame the US for dragging the UK into but technically is just payback for previously
dragging the US into a scheme to protect British oil interests in Iran- and we all
know how that's played out so everyone's even Stevens as far as we're concerned.
After the end of the Cold War, the British military began to ramp down and prepare for
low intensity operations. However, Iraq and Afghanistan proved to be higher intensity
conflicts than anticipated, and a military that had been put on course for a low intensity fight
was suddenly thrust into a conflict it wasn't fully prepared for. With operations in both
countries though, the UK quickly discovered it simply did not have the resources to fight in
two theaters simultaneously- by June 2010 the cost to the UK for both wars had risen to $31 billion,
and this in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. Even as the price tag kept increasing,
British government was discussing how to further reduce military spending,
prompted by a new government which had inherited a budget deficit of about 12% of GDP.
As Prime Minister Cameron's government came into power, they initiated an austerity plan
to fix UK's finances. This made it impossible to realign and refocus British military priorities,
and complicated resolving a 38 billion pound overhang in the military equipment budget alone.
The military equipment wish list was heavily frowned upon and thought exorbitant given that
the military itself had shrunk significantly, from 220,000 in 1998 to about 102,000
by 2010. Cameron's government unleashed the Strategic Defense and Security Review,
which was in effect a severe cost-cutting plan to gut the UK military. Under its guidance,
the British army shrank from 102,000 to 82,000- a 20% drop- and had 40% of its Challenger 2
tank fleet scrapped. Self-propelled artillery, much more expensive to equip and maintain than
towed artillery, also got the axe, with Britain scrapping 35% of its inventory.
Another victim was the Royal Navy's HMS Ark Royal, decommissioned in April 2011,
which eliminated its entire naval air fleet arm. Its 72 Harriers were sold to
the US Marine Corps for the bargain price of $180 million- a hell of a deal considering
at the time of their acquisition that Harrier fleet would've cost the UK around $2 billion.
With no carrier or maritime patrol capability of its own, Britain was forced to rely on its
allies when it intervened in the first Libyan civil war. Operation Ellamy was an attempt to
prove that the UK was still a relevant European power, but it came at a severe cost as it's
military's stockpile of precision weapons was seriously depleted- and to this day they have
not been fully replaced. Despite this, the British military continued to experience
cuts. Military leadership began to grow quite vocal with their discontent, appearing on prime
time news shows to voice concern about the readiness of the UK military. In response,
they were promised a 1 percent increase in equipment purchases from 2015 to 2020. The
government also made plans to increase total defense spending by 5 percent between 2020 and
2021, and canceled a round of equipment cuts to Britain's tank and artillery fleets. There
were also plans to bring back Britain's carrier capabilities to the Royal Navy.
And then Brexit happened, hurling the British economy into turmoil.
Following hot on its heels, the global Covid pandemic did its best to further
ruin Britain's military reinvestment plans by dragging the global economy into the ditch.
But then new Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the largest investment in the
Ministry of Defense since the Cold War- a four year funding deal that would add $21.9
billion to the military's budget and would be geared at rearmament and replenishment. Despite
this though, Britain was still planning significant cuts to its standing forces,
specifically in its army and its fleet of armored vehicles.
Then barely a year later, Russia decided to invade Ukraine and Europe was shocked
to discover that Russians had opted to resolve their problems with guns and artillery instead
of the expected hugs. The economic disruption was global, and put even more pressure on the
UK military budget. Nonetheless, the UK has stepped up to the plate with $2.8 billion
in military aid, over 200 armored vehicles, and 10,000 rounds of artillery ammunition.
The real problem though is that the government currently has no means of backfilling everything
that's been sent to Ukraine, prompting at least one MP to comment that the military
could only fight for five days, and not defend the home islands from invasion.
So how in the world would Britain aid its allies in a third world war?
For decades after the Cold War, Britain figured that it's role in any future conflict would
be largely in the air and at sea, prompting its biggest budget cuts to fall squarely on
the army. Its fleet of Challenger 2 main battle tanks has shrunk to 213 vehicles,
but that fleet is facing even more cuts down to just 148 Challenger 3s by 2030.
But this won't be a new tank acquisition, but merely an upgrade program of its Challenger 2-
so despite some increased capability, the overall program is a net loss for British
ground forces. Given typicaly readiness rates of around 75%, by 2030 Britain may have just
over 100 tanks ready for war at any given time. At even just half the loss rates of
those experienced in Ukraine, Britain would be out of tanks within a month or two of fighting.
Its 721 infantry fighting vehicles are facing the prospect of similar cuts as the army transitions
from the Warrior IFV to the Ajax IFV. It plans to acquire 589 Ajaxes by 2029, and it's almost
certain that the total fleet will not return to even the 721 Warriors currently in service.
The nation has a pathetic artillery force mostly made up of 126 105mm howitzers. Significant
reductions to its self-propelled guns has shrunk its force to just 89 155mm AS-90s, with 32 of
these transferred to Ukraine. The transfers are expected to be replaced by the swedish built BAE
Archer, which trades armor for mobility, and the UK already has 14 in service. The Archer
is a stop-gap purchase though as the army figures out what vehicle will ultimately replace its AS-90
fleet. Its rocket artillery forces number at just 44, and are in the process of being
upgraded to fire the American GMLRS extended range and Precision Strike Missile by 2025.
To support its ground forces, the British Army has 44 attack helicopters, with 2 of these being an
upgraded Apache variant, the AH-64E. This fleet is actually expected to grow however, with a total of
50 new helicopters on order to replace its aging fleet of license-built Apaches procured in 2004.
The once legendary Royal Navy has suffered significant cuts as well. At sea,
Britain operates 4 ballistic missile submarines as part of its nuclear triad,
as well as 6 nuclear attack submarines. The old Trafalgar class is being retired,
with the HMS Triumph slated to be decommissioned soon as it's replaced
with the new Astute class. Britain has plans to purchase 7 of these nuclear powered submarines,
but as focus shifts to the Indo-Pacific and a war with China, more purchases are under
consideration. However, given how long it takes to build ships and subs, it's likely
already too late for any future purchases to do anything but replace combat losses.
In 2017, the HMS Queen Elizabeth was comissioned, marking a triumphant return of the Royal Navy's
aviation arm to the world's oceans. Now the UK operates two of the Queen Elizabeth class
aircraft carriers, with each carrying a maximum of 36 F-35s along with support rotary aviation.
The largest vessels ever built for the Royal Navy, they pale in comparison with the 75 to 90
combat jets that a US supercarrier can field, and which China eventually hopes to match,
but are a significant move back to becoming a significant naval power. The F-35 also gives
the UK an outsized punch against any potential adversary- namely China or Russia- though the
nation has been heavily criticized by the US after one of its former F-35 pilots was
discovered to have been contracted as a 'consultant' by the Chinese military.
Its carriers are supported by 6 Type 45 destroyers, which are primarily equipped for
an air defense role to protect friendly ships from enemy aircraft and missiles. These are
supplemented by 11 Type 23 frigates, which while being guided missile frigates, lack significant
punching power against surface vessels. Instead, the Type 23 are optimized for anti-submarine
warfare, leaving the anti-ship role largely up to its attack submarines or aircraft carriers.
The Royal Air Force meanwhile finds itself in dire straits. Its air fleet has shrunk to just
137 Eurofighter Typhoons and 29 F-35s, which are jointly operated by its Fleet Air Arm. This
leaves the Royal Air Force with basically just the Typhoon, and those are already being scrapped with
the fleet shrinking by the year. The RAF does have plans to procure between 60 to 80 total F-35s,
though it'll be sharing about half of these with the navy. The Tempest, now in development,
is expected to make up the bulk of the Royal Air Force by replacing the current fleet of Typhoons,
but given the history of British arms procurement, the Royal Air Force's outlook is grim as it
attempts to defend British interests with a fleet of less than 200 combat aircraft. To make matters
worse, the RAF has no operational advanced early warning and control aircraft, with an order for
five being reduced to just three and expected to be delivered in 2024. It does still maintain
9 Posiedon anti-submarine and anti-ship aircraft however, as would be expected given its duty to
defend the UK-Greenland-Iceland line against Russian ships and submarines in case of war.
So how would the UK fight a third world war with such an anmenic military?
Britain's role in a major future conflict would be relegated to a support role,
a serious demotion from its frontline role in both World Wars. In a European conflict,
Britain's biggest contribution to NATO would be its role as an unsinkable aircraft carrier
for American long range strike aircraft. With no dedicated bombers of its own, and such a small
air fleet of which only about half would ever realistically be operational at any one time,
British fighters would be best used to ensure the skies over and around the British isles
remain safe for allied aircraft- specially for big American bombers like the B-52.
Its navy's greatest contribution would be in securing the all-important UK-Greenland-Iceland
line, a picket line stretching across the North Atlantic. Russian vessels would seek
to cross this picket in order to attack American shipping in the Atlantic, though given the state
of the Russian navy today, only its submarine forces would pose any threat. These Britain is
well suited to tracking and destroying given its fleet of Poseidon aircraft and frigates.
Britain would struggle to provide significant firepower for a land task force, and its forces
would likely be relegated to a reserve force, to be held back and used in case of enemy
breakthrough. As it would take weeks for Britain to fully meet its NATO commitments, its army would
be important in relieving combat exhausted or depleted NATO forces from other nations.
But lacking significant firepower, Britain's days as a frontline force are well in the past.
As the next major global conflict is likely to occur in the the Pacific against an increasingly
belligerent China, Britain would be even more hard pressed to seriously support its
American and Australian allies. However, a 2023 UK-Japan defense agreement has greatly
increased ties between the two nations, and allows for the deployment of their militaries
within each other's nations. While small, a UK air or ground commitment in Japan would still
be significant given its modern capabilities- and in a war over Taiwan, one can never have
enough combat jets or ground-based air defenses protecting Japanese air fields.
Its attack submarines could pose a significant headache for China, given their extreme stealth
and lethality against a People's Liberation Army Navy that is still lagging significantly behind
in anti-submarine warfare. Here Britain's small undersea forces would have an outsized effect
in helping the US and allies shut down Chinese shipping around Taiwan- though the Strait itself
is too shallow for safe operation of attack submarines. Of its two aircraft carriers,
it's likely only one would be operational at any one time, but an additional, if smaller, carrier
in the Pacific would be a significant boost to US efforts to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Its days as a global military power are firmly behind it, and its military is in
a state of crisis- but Britain can still provide significant assistance to any allied effort in the
next major war. In the end, it's exactly these allies that are Britain's greatest strength,
though the nation must ask itself if it hasn't been overly reliant on both its
nuclear arsenal and the power of its allies to guarantee its own security.
Now go watch France's World War III Plan, or click this other video instead!