-
Ha nem vagy kibékülve az alapértelmezettnek beállított sötét sablonnal, akkor a korábbi ígéretnek megfelelően bármikor átválthatsz a korábbi világos színekkel dolgozó kinézetre.
Ehhez görgess a lap aljára és a baloldalon keresd a HTKA Dark feliratú gombot. Kattints rá, majd a megnyíló ablakban válaszd a HTKA Light lehetőséget. Választásod a böngésződ elmenti cookie-ba, így amikor legközelebb érkezel ezt a műveletsort nem kell megismételned. -
Az elmúlt időszak tapasztalatai alapján házirendet kapott a topic.
Ezen témában - a fórumon rendhagyó módon - az oldal üzemeltetője saját álláspontja, meggyőződése alapján nem enged bizonyos véleményeket, mivel meglátása szerint az káros a járványhelyzet enyhítését célzó törekvésekre.
Kérünk, hogy a vírus veszélyességét kétségbe vonó, oltásellenes véleményed más platformon fejtsd ki. Nálunk ennek nincs helye. Az ilyen hozzászólásokért 1 alkalommal figyelmeztetés jár, majd folytatása esetén a témáról letiltás. Arra is kérünk, hogy a fórum más témáiba ne vigyétek át, mert azért viszont már a fórum egészéről letiltás járhat hosszabb-rövidebb időre.
-
Az elmúlt időszak tapasztalatai alapján frissített házirendet kapott a topic.
--- VÁLTOZÁS A MODERÁLÁSBAN ---
A források, hírek preferáltak. Azoknak, akik veszik a fáradságot és összegyűjtik ezeket a főként harcokkal, a háború jelenlegi állásával és haditechnika szempontjából érdekes híreket, (mindegy milyen oldali) forrásokkal alátámasztják és bonuszként legalább a címet egy google fordítóba berakják, azoknak ismételten köszönjük az áldozatos munkáját és további kitartást kívánunk nekik!
Ami nem a topik témájába vág vagy akár csak erősebb hangnemben is kerül megfogalmazásra, az valamilyen formában szankcionálva lesz
Minden olyan hozzászólásért ami nem hír, vagy szorosan a konfliktushoz kapcsolódó vélemény / elemzés azért instant 3 nap topic letiltás jár. Aki pedig ezzel trükközne és folytatná másik topicban annak 2 hónap fórum ban a jussa.
Vicces lenne, amit a britek dobnak, mi felvesszük. Hadiháda?A Chinook az összes tüzérségi eszközzel jöhetne... Rheinmetall modernizációval
Vagy Hádarmy?
Ezek nagy része már előre el volt tervezve:
- A BAe 146 már jó előre
- A C-130J-k szintén.
- A 24 Typhoon a tranche 1-hez tartozik. Ezt már EF topicban kitémáztuk, hogy alkatrésznek elbontják őket.
- a helikopteres rész nem annyira érthető nekem, mert elvileg az AW101 (a flottánál mindenképp) és a Chinooknak (még ha minimálisan redukált méretben is) rendszerben KELL még maradnia, viszont a Puma-kat (23db) már ki kell vonni - en block. A pótlásukon már dolgoznak. Mindenképpen redukálni fogják a flottát, de ez részben típuscserével fog járni. Mondjuk ez érthető is valamennyire, mert a könnyű gyalogság mérete is csökkenni fog.
Bár nem említik, de szerintem a 45-tel való "vágásban" a Gazelle-ket is bele kell számolni.
Navy:
Lehet, hogy lesznek hajók kivonva, de összességében növelniük kell a flottát.
A Type 23-asok bár sorban kivonásra kerülnek, de modernebb fregattokra cserélik őket.
Army: mindkét tüzérségi eszköz kivonása is aktuális lehet. Ha az AS90-eseket teljesen ki is vonják, akkor is várhatóan új eszközökkel cserélik. A 105-ösöket pedig részben vonják ki szerintem. Náluk még az átlakítás után is rengeteg lesz a light infantry. Az ő támogatásukra alapvetőek ezek az ágyúk.
Háát azért ezt fenntartásokkal mondanám.A Chinook az összes tüzérségi eszközzel jöhetne... Rheinmetall modernizációval
Az AS90-eseknek a maguk L39-es ágyúinak nem igazán lenne értelme itthon.
Azt majd szépen elviszik a lengyelek, és összepakolnak pár saját Krabot belőle (K9 alvázra AS90-es torony, RM torony).
Mint ahogy a Chinook is kérdéses. Ott az elsősorban állapotfüggő lenne, nem mai csirke itt már egyik gép sem. Én mondjuk azonnal rábólintanék egy Mi-8 - Chinook cserére!
Az a gond, hogy valószínűleg lehetnek gondok a kidobandó gépekkel is, mert 2018-ban már engedélyezték nekik 18 Chinook megvételét, a legrégebbi vasak lecserélésére.
Viszont a drasztikus létszámcsökkentéssel jópár 0km-es egyéb dolgot is ki fognak dobni. Na ott kell azért szétnézni!
K
kamm
Guest
Az kemeny, 138 helyett mindossze 48 F-35 lesz a briteknel, akik az egyetlen Tier1 orszag voltak az F-35-os programban. 
Hat ha ez nem iskolapeldaja a teljesen elbaszarintott program managementnek, ahol meg a programalapitot es a leglelkesebb tamogatot is sikerult ugy atbaszarintani anyagilag, hogy a toredekere csokkentik a rendelest - ezzel ugye tovabb dragitva az eddigi PR logika szerint -, akkor nem is tudom mi ez... vilag legostobabb hadiipari lehuzasa?
Igy akkora bukta lesz ez az F-35 mindenhol, hogy hihetetlen.
Az LM-nel allhat a panik, usznak a a stock eladasokbol meg bonusokbol mar betervezett maganjet meg ingatlanvasarlasok a mgmt koreben...
Ezek utan azon sem lepodnek meg, ha egyes, kisebb orszagok komplett visszamondanak a tipus bevezeteset. A finneknel ezek utan szerintem egyaltalan nincs eselye, mert igy csak felfele mehet az ara mindennek, nem lefele.
Hat ha ez nem iskolapeldaja a teljesen elbaszarintott program managementnek, ahol meg a programalapitot es a leglelkesebb tamogatot is sikerult ugy atbaszarintani anyagilag, hogy a toredekere csokkentik a rendelest - ezzel ugye tovabb dragitva az eddigi PR logika szerint -, akkor nem is tudom mi ez... vilag legostobabb hadiipari lehuzasa?
Igy akkora bukta lesz ez az F-35 mindenhol, hogy hihetetlen.
Az LM-nel allhat a panik, usznak a a stock eladasokbol meg bonusokbol mar betervezett maganjet meg ingatlanvasarlasok a mgmt koreben...
Ezek utan azon sem lepodnek meg, ha egyes, kisebb orszagok komplett visszamondanak a tipus bevezeteset. A finneknel ezek utan szerintem egyaltalan nincs eselye, mert igy csak felfele mehet az ara mindennek, nem lefele.
Növelik - hosszú távon.
A Type-23 fregattokból 13db van hadrendben, ezt váltja 8db Type-26, ezek nagy (8000 tonna feletti vízkiszorítású) modern és jó képességű, ASW és csapásmérésre kondicionált hajók, de darabjuk 1,25 milliárd font körül lesz. Ezek mellett lesz 5db Type-31, amelyek olcsóbb, kisebb, 5700 tonnás egységek, nagyjából 250 millió font per darabáron. További 5db Type-32 beszerzése van tervben, amelyek a Type-31-hez hasonló olcsó, de modern hajóegységek lesznek.
Tengeralattjárók terén is megvan a terv, 7db Astute osztályú SSN egység plusz 4db Dreadnought osztályú SSBN.
S
speziale
Guest
Mondjuk 48 db F 35-tel két Queen Elizabeth hordozónak sincs túl sok értelme.
Akkor jól tippeltem a Gazelle kapcsán.
Drummond a H135-öt tippeli a cseréjének. (Én meg még mellé teszem a H145M-et is!)
Érdekes lesz még az is, hogy mi lesz a Puma váltótípusa. Oda az AW139-et ajánlotta a Leonardo, az Airbus meg a H160M-et.
Drummond a H135-öt tippeli a cseréjének. (Én meg még mellé teszem a H145M-et is!)
Érdekes lesz még az is, hogy mi lesz a Puma váltótípusa. Oda az AW139-et ajánlotta a Leonardo, az Airbus meg a H160M-et.
Megint össze-vissza "beszélek".Háát azért ezt fenntartásokkal mondanám.
Az AS90-eseknek a maguk L39-es ágyúinak nem igazán lenne értelme itthon.
Azt majd szépen elviszik a lengyelek, és összepakolnak pár saját Krabot belőle (K9 alvázra AS90-es torony, RM torony).
Mint ahogy a Chinook is kérdéses. Ott az elsősorban állapotfüggő lenne, nem mai csirke itt már egyik gép sem. Én mondjuk azonnal rábólintanék egy Mi-8 - Chinook cserére!
Az a gond, hogy valószínűleg lehetnek gondok a kidobandó gépekkel is, mert 2018-ban már engedélyezték nekik 18 Chinook megvételét, a legrégebbi vasak lecserélésére.
Viszont a drasztikus létszámcsökkentéssel jópár 0km-es egyéb dolgot is ki fognak dobni. Na ott kell azért szétnézni!
Nem RM torony, hanem RM ágyú!
Csak a rövid törzsű J-k eladása volt tervben eddig, a 14 db J-30 hosszított változatot 2035-ben akarták csak nyugdíjazni.
Majd elpasszolják Indiának (vagy a braziloknak bagóért, mint az Oceant).
Már amikor építették a második egységet, akkor is szóba került, hogy inkább eladják.
K
kamm
Guest
Igazabol mindegy, mert az osszes C-130-at Atlas valtana a tervek szerint amugy is (par speci verziot kiveve.)
K
kamm
Guest
"Johnson set to unnerve allies with ‘Global Britain’ defence review
Fears that cuts to army and shift from Europe to Asia risk spreading defence capabilities too thinly
The size of the British army will come into question as part of a sweeping defence and foreign policy review due to be published next week © Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images
Helen Warrell in London YESTERDAY
Boris Johnson’s eagerly awaited new security strategy risks creating tensions with the UK’s closest allies if it spreads its armed forces too thinly and neglects key defence duties in pursuit of a “Global Britain” agenda, experts have warned.
The integrated defence and foreign policy review — which has been repeatedly delayed as Downing Street battles to control the coronavirus pandemic — will be published next week as a statement of the prime minister’s post-Brexit vision for the country.
But the document, grandly titled “Global Britain in a Competitive Age”, is likely to be controversial with foreign defence partners. Core defence capabilities will be retired to pay for digital warfare technology and the UK’s promised focus on the Indo-Pacific risks detracting from its responsibilities in the north Atlantic. It also remains unclear how a post-Brexit UK will co-operate with EU countries on security.
“I’m sure the review will be a powerful essay about Britain’s role in the world,” said Lord Peter Ricketts, the UK’s former national security adviser. But he added: “Will our ambitious plans actually feed through into something which makes sense?”
‘Troop numbers still matter’
The most contentious decision is on the size of the army, which is widely expected to be cut from a notional force of around 82,000 to something closer to 72,000. Even though the Ministry of Defence secured an unexpected £16.5bn spending boost from the Treasury in the autumn, the department is still seeking savings to reduce a £17bn budget black hole and fund better cyber defences and new military capabilities in space.
US military officials say privately that while they value UK special forces and are impressed by Britain's growing cyber expertise, troop numbers still matter. Washington has traditionally relied on the UK to field a heavy division, which means an army of roughly 100,000 personnel. Michael Shurkin, a security expert at the Rand Corporation, insisted that the US’s historical default to military co-operation with the British is based on a recognition of its quality, rather than troop strength. “It’s not just that we expect the British to show up when we call — we really want the British to show up when we call, because they're good,” he said.
However, he made clear that “it becomes a real problem” if suddenly a trusted ally can no longer provide the troop numbers it once could.
The challenge for ministers is how to present cuts to the army without causing alarm in Washington and Nato headquarters. “How well it goes down with our allies depends very much on how honest we are about what we’re doing,” said Jack Watling, a land warfare specialist at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank.
He argued that if the UK offers to provide attack helicopters, long-range precision rocket artillery and reconnaissance troops to assist other nations, this could help compensate for a reduction in overall personnel. “If we set out a credible roadmap that admits it’s going to be rough for the next decade but by 2030 we will deliver something that is clearly defined, then the US will probably respond positively,” Watling said.
Countering China
Another potential flashpoint will be the review’s focus on the Indo-Pacific, as the UK pursues deeper defence ties with Asian allies such as Japan, India and South Korea in an effort to counter China’s growing military assertiveness. China now has the world’s largest navy and is honing its long-range ballistic missile capabilities. Beijing’s $12bn boost to its 2020 defence budget ($193bn) was greater than the combined defence budget increases in all other Asian states combined, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The Royal Navy’s flagship aircraft carrier will deploy later in the spring on her maiden voyage to East Asia, and is due to carry out joint exercises with Japan, among others. But some experts have questioned whether the UK’s commitments are real or merely symbolic — especially since Britain does not have enough of its own fighter jets to equip the carrier, and is relying on the US Marine Corps supplying F-35B Lightning aircraft.
The UK’s HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier is to be deployed on its maiden voyage to East Asia this spring © Dan Rosenbaum/MoD
“For Australians, Blighty showing up in the old neighbourhood is very easily seen through the lens of imperial nostalgia or post-Brexit hubris,” said Euan Graham, an Asian defence expert at the IISS, based in Singapore. “The Brits should be judged on their consistency of presence, not a once-in-a-generation deployment of a carrier group, that’s not really of much use.”
There are suggestions from some analysts that the US — which is refocusing its own military efforts against China — might prefer Britain to strengthen its presence in the north Atlantic, the Gulf and the Mediterranean, allowing American forces to concentrate on Pacific defence themselves. “Maybe strategically speaking, the better way to [counter Beijing],” Shurkin suggested.
‘A tilt away from Europe’
The UK’s European allies may also be wary of British ambitions in Asia. Ricketts — a former British ambassador to France — described Johnson’s enthusiasm for a return to the seas east of Suez as “a tilt away from Europe as much as a tilt towards the Indo-Pacific”. He said the French will be keen to see the integrated review acknowledge the EU’s contribution to European security. But he noted: “I think they’ll be disappointed.”
We could have a very useful role closer to home which is logistically possible, militarily feasible, and we could have real clout within Nato Lord David Richards, former chief of the UK defence staff One solution to the MoD’s financial shortfalls would be to find savings through collaboration. Nicolas Baverez, a defence expert at the Paris-based Institut Montaigne, argued Britain and France share a challenge in funding new hypersonics, robotics, and space capabilities. “It will be very difficult for each of our countries alone to finance all these fields of research,” he said. “The answer will be to make bets and choices, and maybe to co-operate, to mutualise certain costs.”
However, the integrated review is more likely to seek alliances further afield. In a speech to the Munich Security Conference last month, Johnson boasted that in leaving the EU, the UK had “restored sovereign control over vital levers of foreign policy”. Johnson added optimistically that European leaders were increasingly looking to American allies “to rediscover that far-sighted leadership and the spirit of adventure and transatlantic unity that made our two continents great in the first place”.
Lord David Richards, former chief of the defence staff, suggested Britain should not forget threats such as Russia in its own backyard.
“We could have a very useful role closer to home which is logistically possible, militarily feasible, and we could have real clout within Nato,” he said. “But the risk is that we fritter it all away by going all around the globe and don’t achieve any real strategic influence anywhere.”"
Fears that cuts to army and shift from Europe to Asia risk spreading defence capabilities too thinly
The size of the British army will come into question as part of a sweeping defence and foreign policy review due to be published next week © Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images
Helen Warrell in London YESTERDAY
Boris Johnson’s eagerly awaited new security strategy risks creating tensions with the UK’s closest allies if it spreads its armed forces too thinly and neglects key defence duties in pursuit of a “Global Britain” agenda, experts have warned.
The integrated defence and foreign policy review — which has been repeatedly delayed as Downing Street battles to control the coronavirus pandemic — will be published next week as a statement of the prime minister’s post-Brexit vision for the country.
But the document, grandly titled “Global Britain in a Competitive Age”, is likely to be controversial with foreign defence partners. Core defence capabilities will be retired to pay for digital warfare technology and the UK’s promised focus on the Indo-Pacific risks detracting from its responsibilities in the north Atlantic. It also remains unclear how a post-Brexit UK will co-operate with EU countries on security.
“I’m sure the review will be a powerful essay about Britain’s role in the world,” said Lord Peter Ricketts, the UK’s former national security adviser. But he added: “Will our ambitious plans actually feed through into something which makes sense?”
‘Troop numbers still matter’
The most contentious decision is on the size of the army, which is widely expected to be cut from a notional force of around 82,000 to something closer to 72,000. Even though the Ministry of Defence secured an unexpected £16.5bn spending boost from the Treasury in the autumn, the department is still seeking savings to reduce a £17bn budget black hole and fund better cyber defences and new military capabilities in space.
US military officials say privately that while they value UK special forces and are impressed by Britain's growing cyber expertise, troop numbers still matter. Washington has traditionally relied on the UK to field a heavy division, which means an army of roughly 100,000 personnel. Michael Shurkin, a security expert at the Rand Corporation, insisted that the US’s historical default to military co-operation with the British is based on a recognition of its quality, rather than troop strength. “It’s not just that we expect the British to show up when we call — we really want the British to show up when we call, because they're good,” he said.
However, he made clear that “it becomes a real problem” if suddenly a trusted ally can no longer provide the troop numbers it once could.
The challenge for ministers is how to present cuts to the army without causing alarm in Washington and Nato headquarters. “How well it goes down with our allies depends very much on how honest we are about what we’re doing,” said Jack Watling, a land warfare specialist at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank.
He argued that if the UK offers to provide attack helicopters, long-range precision rocket artillery and reconnaissance troops to assist other nations, this could help compensate for a reduction in overall personnel. “If we set out a credible roadmap that admits it’s going to be rough for the next decade but by 2030 we will deliver something that is clearly defined, then the US will probably respond positively,” Watling said.
Countering China
Another potential flashpoint will be the review’s focus on the Indo-Pacific, as the UK pursues deeper defence ties with Asian allies such as Japan, India and South Korea in an effort to counter China’s growing military assertiveness. China now has the world’s largest navy and is honing its long-range ballistic missile capabilities. Beijing’s $12bn boost to its 2020 defence budget ($193bn) was greater than the combined defence budget increases in all other Asian states combined, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The Royal Navy’s flagship aircraft carrier will deploy later in the spring on her maiden voyage to East Asia, and is due to carry out joint exercises with Japan, among others. But some experts have questioned whether the UK’s commitments are real or merely symbolic — especially since Britain does not have enough of its own fighter jets to equip the carrier, and is relying on the US Marine Corps supplying F-35B Lightning aircraft.
The UK’s HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier is to be deployed on its maiden voyage to East Asia this spring © Dan Rosenbaum/MoD
“For Australians, Blighty showing up in the old neighbourhood is very easily seen through the lens of imperial nostalgia or post-Brexit hubris,” said Euan Graham, an Asian defence expert at the IISS, based in Singapore. “The Brits should be judged on their consistency of presence, not a once-in-a-generation deployment of a carrier group, that’s not really of much use.”
There are suggestions from some analysts that the US — which is refocusing its own military efforts against China — might prefer Britain to strengthen its presence in the north Atlantic, the Gulf and the Mediterranean, allowing American forces to concentrate on Pacific defence themselves. “Maybe strategically speaking, the better way to [counter Beijing],” Shurkin suggested.
‘A tilt away from Europe’
The UK’s European allies may also be wary of British ambitions in Asia. Ricketts — a former British ambassador to France — described Johnson’s enthusiasm for a return to the seas east of Suez as “a tilt away from Europe as much as a tilt towards the Indo-Pacific”. He said the French will be keen to see the integrated review acknowledge the EU’s contribution to European security. But he noted: “I think they’ll be disappointed.”
We could have a very useful role closer to home which is logistically possible, militarily feasible, and we could have real clout within Nato Lord David Richards, former chief of the UK defence staff One solution to the MoD’s financial shortfalls would be to find savings through collaboration. Nicolas Baverez, a defence expert at the Paris-based Institut Montaigne, argued Britain and France share a challenge in funding new hypersonics, robotics, and space capabilities. “It will be very difficult for each of our countries alone to finance all these fields of research,” he said. “The answer will be to make bets and choices, and maybe to co-operate, to mutualise certain costs.”
However, the integrated review is more likely to seek alliances further afield. In a speech to the Munich Security Conference last month, Johnson boasted that in leaving the EU, the UK had “restored sovereign control over vital levers of foreign policy”. Johnson added optimistically that European leaders were increasingly looking to American allies “to rediscover that far-sighted leadership and the spirit of adventure and transatlantic unity that made our two continents great in the first place”.
Lord David Richards, former chief of the defence staff, suggested Britain should not forget threats such as Russia in its own backyard.
“We could have a very useful role closer to home which is logistically possible, militarily feasible, and we could have real clout within Nato,” he said. “But the risk is that we fritter it all away by going all around the globe and don’t achieve any real strategic influence anywhere.”"
Future of Royal Air Force not bright...
90x F-35B Lightnings cancelled. Orders to be reduced from 138 to 48
24x first production batch Typhoons withdrawn from use
5x Sentinel 3x and Islander R1 withdrawn from use and will not be replaced
14x remaining Hercules transporters withdrawn from use
4x BAE146 used by 32(TR)sq withdrawn from use and replaced by leased aircraft
45x transport helicopters withdrawn from use. No types mentioned, but the current fleet is made up out of Merlin, Chinook and Puma helicopters
90x F-35B Lightnings cancelled. Orders to be reduced from 138 to 48
24x first production batch Typhoons withdrawn from use
5x Sentinel 3x and Islander R1 withdrawn from use and will not be replaced
14x remaining Hercules transporters withdrawn from use
4x BAE146 used by 32(TR)sq withdrawn from use and replaced by leased aircraft
45x transport helicopters withdrawn from use. No types mentioned, but the current fleet is made up out of Merlin, Chinook and Puma helicopters
Az Egyesült Királyság növeli a nukleáris robbanófejei számát, amelyeket tárol-jelentés
sputniknews.com
UK to Increase Number of Nuclear Warheads it Can Stockpile - Report
The UK is estimated to possess around 195 nuclear weapons, of which 120 are operationally available, according to an April 2020 report by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The UK's deployed warheads are controlled by the...
sputniknews.com
K
kamm
Guest
Az Egyesült Királyság növeli a nukleáris robbanófejei számát, amelyeket tárol-jelentés
UK to Increase Number of Nuclear Warheads it Can Stockpile - Report
The UK is estimated to possess around 195 nuclear weapons, of which 120 are operationally available, according to an April 2020 report by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The UK's deployed warheads are controlled by the...
A vicces az, hogy ha jol emlekszem mindegyik amerikai (Trident?), nincs is mar sajatjuk igen regen, magyaran megint egy adag penzt keszulnek az amerikaiak zsebebe tolni, szerintem pusztan political posturing okan.
K
kamm
Guest
Korabbi Chief of Staff probalja menteni ami meg mentheto, a brexites "Global Britain" elhuzva probalja BoJonak elmagyarazni, hogy nem kellene akkorat vagni:
www.telegraph.co.uk
General Sir Mike Jackson 15 March 2021 • 6:00am
The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, due to be published tomorrow, has been described as a root-and-branch review of the UK’s defence policy – the most significant since the end of the Cold War.
As its lofty title, “Global Britain in a Competitive Age”, suggests, it will also lay out a strategy for making post-Brexit “Global Britain” a success well into the 2030s. I await it with interest and a degree of trepidation.
Reviews of this kind are exercises in managing competing spending priorities. The threats we face are rapidly evolving: advances in drone technology, cyber and space warfare, artificial intelligence and robots are modifying the battle space. Adjusting priorities in view of this involves trade-offs, despite the £16 billion of extra defence funding agreed last year.
Of primary concern is the expected reduction in troop numbers to around 73,000. Already we have the smallest British Army in 400 years – our troops in their entirety would now leave Wembley Stadium a fifth empty.
Defence officials promise a leaner, more agile Army. Their calculation is that our Special Forces’ capabilities, cyber strength and air power – backed up by investments in advanced technologies and innovative weapons systems – are more relevant to countering tomorrow’s threats. Perhaps they are right.
The risk is that Britain becomes, as Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, the former chief of defence staff, once warned, a “Belgium with nukes” – in decline and strategically insignificant, in spite of our enduring capabilities. That worry may be overblown. But to dispel the notion fully, the integrated review must clearly articulate Britain’s post-Brexit goals and its global role.
Tilting Britain’s strategic priorities towards the Indo-Pacific is to be expected, aligning us with concerns across the West, most evident in the US, over China. Time will tell the extent to which that is feasible, with our already stretched Armed Forces being spread even more thinly.
I hope to see a strategic vision for putting meat on the bones of “Global Britain”. The Government promises to embrace the possibilities of Brexit, and to guarantee our future prosperity and security by fully engaging with partners. Now is the time to spell out how exactly that will work.
For Britain to hold its own, we must operate flexibly and efficiently. I am optimistic about the prospect of a more integrated foreign policy, encompassing defence, diplomacy, trade and international aid. By rolling together foreign and development policy in the recently created Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as well concentrating trade policy in the Department for International Trade, we are sensibly giving them greater coherence.
Deploying a more holistic and targeted approach – in which military support and economic diplomacy work hand in glove – could help Global Britain expand its influence in some of the world’s fastest growing countries.
Take Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy and a demographic giant, where there is significant scope to build on existing co-operation. The UK’s decision to send Army trainers to Nigeria in 2015 was a highly effective use of resources. It helped President Buhari turn the tide against Boko Haram, the IS-aligned terror group which had threatened to overrun the north west of the country, and also enhanced our own security.
In countries like Nigeria, where significant progress has been made in fighting corruption, developing infrastructure, improving the ease of doing business, and embedding democratic norms, there is much for Global Britain to achieve. We must be more ambitious in opening up opportunities for investment in other emerging markets. Our soft power is felt around the world: projecting our values of free trade and democracy, alongside vital military support, can spearhead our global engagement.
The UK is not alone in having to adapt to a changed world. What sets us apart is our need for a post-Brexit identity. The review is an opportunity to set out how Britain can unite its economic vision, its values-based diplomacy and its military capabilities to succeed in the modern world. It should make for interesting reading.
General Sir Mike Jackson is a former Chief of the General Staff"
The Armed Forces can help define Global Britain
The UK will succeed in the modern world if economic diplomacy is backed up by military support
www.telegraph.co.uk
"The Armed Forces can help define Global Britain
The UK will succeed in the modern world if economic diplomacy is backed up by military supportGeneral Sir Mike Jackson 15 March 2021 • 6:00am
The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, due to be published tomorrow, has been described as a root-and-branch review of the UK’s defence policy – the most significant since the end of the Cold War.
As its lofty title, “Global Britain in a Competitive Age”, suggests, it will also lay out a strategy for making post-Brexit “Global Britain” a success well into the 2030s. I await it with interest and a degree of trepidation.
Reviews of this kind are exercises in managing competing spending priorities. The threats we face are rapidly evolving: advances in drone technology, cyber and space warfare, artificial intelligence and robots are modifying the battle space. Adjusting priorities in view of this involves trade-offs, despite the £16 billion of extra defence funding agreed last year.
Of primary concern is the expected reduction in troop numbers to around 73,000. Already we have the smallest British Army in 400 years – our troops in their entirety would now leave Wembley Stadium a fifth empty.
Defence officials promise a leaner, more agile Army. Their calculation is that our Special Forces’ capabilities, cyber strength and air power – backed up by investments in advanced technologies and innovative weapons systems – are more relevant to countering tomorrow’s threats. Perhaps they are right.
The risk is that Britain becomes, as Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, the former chief of defence staff, once warned, a “Belgium with nukes” – in decline and strategically insignificant, in spite of our enduring capabilities. That worry may be overblown. But to dispel the notion fully, the integrated review must clearly articulate Britain’s post-Brexit goals and its global role.
Tilting Britain’s strategic priorities towards the Indo-Pacific is to be expected, aligning us with concerns across the West, most evident in the US, over China. Time will tell the extent to which that is feasible, with our already stretched Armed Forces being spread even more thinly.
I hope to see a strategic vision for putting meat on the bones of “Global Britain”. The Government promises to embrace the possibilities of Brexit, and to guarantee our future prosperity and security by fully engaging with partners. Now is the time to spell out how exactly that will work.
For Britain to hold its own, we must operate flexibly and efficiently. I am optimistic about the prospect of a more integrated foreign policy, encompassing defence, diplomacy, trade and international aid. By rolling together foreign and development policy in the recently created Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as well concentrating trade policy in the Department for International Trade, we are sensibly giving them greater coherence.
Deploying a more holistic and targeted approach – in which military support and economic diplomacy work hand in glove – could help Global Britain expand its influence in some of the world’s fastest growing countries.
Take Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy and a demographic giant, where there is significant scope to build on existing co-operation. The UK’s decision to send Army trainers to Nigeria in 2015 was a highly effective use of resources. It helped President Buhari turn the tide against Boko Haram, the IS-aligned terror group which had threatened to overrun the north west of the country, and also enhanced our own security.
In countries like Nigeria, where significant progress has been made in fighting corruption, developing infrastructure, improving the ease of doing business, and embedding democratic norms, there is much for Global Britain to achieve. We must be more ambitious in opening up opportunities for investment in other emerging markets. Our soft power is felt around the world: projecting our values of free trade and democracy, alongside vital military support, can spearhead our global engagement.
The UK is not alone in having to adapt to a changed world. What sets us apart is our need for a post-Brexit identity. The review is an opportunity to set out how Britain can unite its economic vision, its values-based diplomacy and its military capabilities to succeed in the modern world. It should make for interesting reading.
General Sir Mike Jackson is a former Chief of the General Staff"