UK defence review to spotlight flaws in weakened forces

Britain is to undertake a major strategic defence review to bolster its weakened armed forces in order to fight in a “much harder world”, defence officials have told The National.

Three senior external figures have been selected to oversee the deep dive by John Healey, Labour's new Defence Secretary, and are set to address a military conundrum of forces unable to man its equipment that in many instances is inadequate.

Alongside George Robertson, the former Nato Secretary General and Labour cabinet minister, the review will be overseen by retired Gen Richard Barrons and former US National Security Council staffer, Fiona Hill.

The British army in particular remains severely depleted, still suffering from the battering it took in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns and struggling to fill posts even in its shrunken state of 72,000 soldiers.

The Royal Navy has two of the world’s most modern aircraft carriers yet, without the escort warships for protection or sufficient personnel, it has not sent them to help meet the Houthi threat in the Red Sea.

While the Royal Air Force has advanced F-35 jets, it cannot afford the 138 it plans to purchase and currently does not have enough pilots to fly the 30 that it does have.

The previous Conservative government’s much hyped “Pacific tilt”, focusing warships in the South China Sea, is likely to be sidelined with a greater focus on defending home shores in the light of the clear and present Russian threat.

The National has spoken to a range of military experts as well as defence officials who have all condemned the military’s current condition and suggested how to renew it.

The review will take at least six months and perhaps longer than a year, defence sources said. But some officers said more urgency is required with the new government needing to rapidly invest in ammunition and training with the possibility of “getting drawn into a fight with Russia” within the next 12 months.

Harder world

The review will be an external one, similar to that conducted by Australia last year, which proposed building a more capable force to meet the worsening strategic situation.

It will establish the current state of defence and consider what the forces are “capable of doing in this harder world”, an MOD source told The National.

“Everybody in defence seems really up for this but there will obviously be a large gap between where we are and where we need to get to,” the source added. It would also focus on modernising the forces to be “affordable” today and with what kit “is really necessary”.

Big three

Mr Healey has chosen three widely respected figures to lead the review. Former Nato secretary general Lord Robertson, described as “a person of enormous stature” by one official, will oversee the project.

Following the announcement, he was quick to warn of “the deadly quartet of nations increasingly working together”, referring to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

He will be accompanied by Gen Barrons, former head of Joint Forces Command, who is an advocate for advanced technology.

Former US presidential adviser Dr Hill, described as “a highly impressive figure”, joins them offering her vast experience on European and Russian affairs as well as Washington.

World’s best?

Few now boast that the British army is “the best in the world” as the force has yet to reconstitute itself after “we had the stuffing knocked out of us” in the Iraq and Afghan campaigns, said a former officer.

But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has upended military thinking in Europe.

“Everybody agrees we have a military at the moment that is very much focused on a fight that doesn't currently exist,” said former tank commander Col Hamish de Bretton-Gordon.

“What's happening in Ukraine is more like what war fighting will be.”

There are many anecdotes about the military’s current condition that has been badly exposed during recent exercises. One in Poland saw an armoured brigade deployed with less than half its muster of 5,000 troops and a third of its vehicles. Similarly, an exercise in the Baltic Sea saw the Royal Navy provide just a couple of patrol vessels.

The review was long overdue, said veteran defence analyst Francis Tusa as “we have highlighted huge gaping holes in defence and all we've had from the official side is ‘we don't recognise this’.”

Military commentator Paul Beaver, a former army colonel, said paramount was examining “the existential threat to the United Kingdom now, and that's Russia,”

“Our armed forces have been hollowed out for the last 30 years and we’ve only maintained a shell to continue our Nato commitment,” he added.

Reverse tilt

Mr Healey has previously spoken of the requirement for the review to examine what Nato wants from Britain and what the country can provide.

The Prime Minister Keir Starmer is also pushing for a “Euro-Atlantic centric” posture, which would mean that the so-called Pacific tilt is “for the birds”, said Mr Tusa.

Col de Bretton-Gordon agreed that Britain “policing the South China Sea is ridiculous” and it should be left to the Americans and Australians.

But a more pressing issue the review will have to address, said Mr Beaver, is “what does an isolationist Trump America bring to the picture?” if he is elected in November, especially with Britain’s military so tied into US forces.

Ukraine lessons

Many experts recognise that Ukraine has led to a revolution in military affairs with the introduction of massed suicide drone attacks on armour and infantry.

Britain, like many other western countries, has a small number of sophisticated drones but has yet to adapt its forces to the new realities.

“We have a few very expensive drones and Ukraine is telling us that actually having millions of cheap drones is the better way ahead,” said Col de Bretton-Gordon.

Furthermore, air defences, which have been long neglected in Britain, as well as air power were “absolutely key” as “without it, you are almost entirely hamstrung”.

Making up the numbers

Numbers will also be important. The very high Russian casualty rate in Ukraine, where they have suffered about 70,000 dead and wounded in the last two months, is the equivalent to the entire size of the British army.

While some suggest that the army should return to 100,000 troops, it is currently struggling to recruit its mandate of 72,000.

Modern life has made it less attractive especially with modest pay, poor accommodation and outsourced recruiting that makes applications highly onerous.

Other than ISIS or equivalent small-scale counter-insurgency operations, for the next 10 to 15 years the more likely warfare will be state-on-state, meaning that in the immediate term Britain needed to rapidly resupply with ammunition and conventional equipment.

Many army officers are also bitter about the estimated £10 billion spent on the two aircraft carriers, which they consider as questionable to the defence of Britain.

Neither carrier was available for the Red Sea deployment, leaving it to the RAF to bomb the Houthis from their base in Cyprus.

Without enough personnel and with many ships undergoing repairs or upgrades, Mr Tusa argued there were currently only four warships ready to go to sea out of a realistic force of 16.

The navy also has to provide Britain’s highly expensive submarine-launched nuclear deterrent.

Stark choices

Retd Brig Ben Barry, writing for the IISS think tank, said the “urgent capability challenges” had been “thrown into sharp focus by a rapidly deteriorating strategic backdrop”.

There would need to be “stark choices” made and the general consensus was that the forces had been significantly hollowed out, he added.

“Some stark choices on capability priorities and even abandoning certain roles in favour of more specialisation may be needed,” he concluded.

“Such decisions have been ducked up to now, but probably cannot be delayed for very long.”