It's nice to know that if the worse did happen we would have one of the worlds best militaries, for about a month before we ran out of everything from fuel to bullets.
This is absolutely shameful. All the leaders involved in those cuts should be publicly shamed.The thing is though, you ask anyone in the army, they'd have told you of this years ago.
If the last 13 years have taught us anything it's that the supporters of those leaders will follow them despite every lie and broken promise. Both the voters and thee usual press and commentators.
Alas, he talks big but hasn’t really delivered anything. In the recent budget there was talk, but no commitment to a substantial, above inflation increase in spending. Under his watch the Army has become a second tier force, by size and capability, whilst the RN and RAF have good kit but insufficient numbers to sustain any operation.
@@dimwitsixtytwelve But he has a big role to play with procuring equipment... this man has let the army slip back into 1840 with less then 100000 soldiers and a very small navy. And to say in the last 50 years makes me think you weren’t alive 50 even 40 years ago as the BOR alone was the size of our current military any way but yet again people falling for the media lies it’s insane how many people are fooled on a regular basis. The highest wastes of money in the army is procurement so I wonder where all the money has gone if they’ve only got a weeks worth of ammunition?
At least their General had the balls to stand up and say in public what was happening. Too often senior officers within western militaries act like politicians rather than leaders of fighting formations. I'm looking at you New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
I wouldn’t criticise Australia, they’ve made some of the biggest improvements recently out of the countries you’ve listed, especially given how their gdp and population is a lot smaller.
@@damolux3388 well most people in Australia don’t really want a war with China unless it’s absolutely necessary, under a previous government our defence minister was basically trying to start a war . The general culture should change pretty soon, as Australia’s defence strategic review will be announced in April, shifting the country from a 1990s geopolitical viewpoint to acknowledging China and a threat.
The ADF’s top brass is a steaming pile of careerist officers that are nothing but Yes-men to the politicians who’d sooner abandon the troops in lieu of some political gesturing. Yes, some improvements have/are being made but at a rate and quantity far less than what is required, not to mention at least 10 years too late.
"An impressive shop window while all the shelves are empty" is accurate and to the point. It's a sad reality at this moment in time, but first step to changing things is to first recognise our shortcomings
Recently came out that they struggle to even recruit because they shoot themselves in the foot with of some woke recruitment quote they have to meet each. They have to recruit a certain amount of ethnic minorities each week or month and in doing so they deny anyone who isn’t an ethnic minorities (or at least not seen as one) to help reach that goal. It cane out like 2 weeks ago i think
These organisations are all run by political "buddies" and these contracts are basically doing favours for each other, when they discuss this behaviour in the developing world they call it cronyism.
get rid of all those civie contracts, they rob the military blind in every sector they're involved. Its shameful contracting our engineering and logistical roles to these civie groups that coast 10x as much as using the personal you already have in said branches.
It's a maths game but a maths game that should always be airing on the side of over estimating demand because ammunition can be stored and always used up in the hundreds of thousands in a single month of extended training packages, let alone a full scale conflict with a peer level adversary. Even in Afghanistan against a non conventional foe, the troops were burning through ammunition stocks continually until the logistics were adjusted. We wouldn't have that luxury against a peer level adversary who contests us on every front (land, sea, air and space) and has the capability to reach out and touch us from another continent over the seas. Therefore, it makes strategic sense to over estimate ammunition requirements so it gives some method of absorbing the shock of industry and therefore logisitc complications that arise when the peer level adversary is bombing convoys and hitting industry's that supply the war effort. This constant running by the bare bones is suicide. The MP's don't run their jobs like this, they always have enough fuel in their cars, helicopters and planes, they always have enough logistics in place for them to do their jobs. It's not asking much for them to ensure the areas they are elected to oversee are also give the same, if not better treatment.
Because American is distributing its guns and ammunition to boys in the hood, and men who wants to shoot a wooden cut out of a man…….thats a simple fix for America.
Agree on the 1930 moment in more then one sense and about the shop window. But it isn't only the UK but practically all of the European NATO countries that face this. And blaming the banking crisis and COVID goes only so far ...
@@JackkDevil lol think I said pratically all somewhere. Althought regarding Greece the Ottomans where a considerable bigger threath than interbellum Turkey (200 year timespan). Current Turkey IS a NATO member but is generally untested in more then what is generally considererd policing operations (fx Kurds) as far as I know . Anyone know of a Turkish operation / detachement UNDER the NATO umbrella besides the earlier mentioned policing actions???
its not covid, but lockdowns, the stuff that happened to destroy businesses and military capability was fully the government's fault by implementing lockdowns.
Except that Putin isn't Hitler, the Russians have neither the interest in nor the capability of threatening Britain in a conventional war and Britain derives no benefit whatsoever in pursuing the Washington neocon agenda in Ukraine, the Middle East or elsewhere.
It’s simple. If Britain faces a threat send in the politicians and civilians in the defence department as infantry. Maybe then money will start flowing!
Good idea, but they would not agree to it, wild horses couldnt drag them into a dangerous job. The coward dies a thousand deaths, the valiant die but once.
@@bernardedwards8461 I know, but it seems only if they’re in danger is anything done. At present they both seem detached from reality. Why should the soldiers pay for politicians ineptness?
Well, according to the Daily Express the Armed forces are getting £5 billion over TWO years. I think it's £3 billion for ammo, then another £2 billion to do with AUKUS. The cuts are still going ahead nothing else at all in the budget, I'm utterly disgusted with Rishi and Hunt. In fact, I think MI5, MI6 and the MET need to get investigating. Hunt is clearly in the pocket of China with his wife's company doing propaganda for the CCP. Rishi is also looking very fishy to, with big money tied to him and some dodgy dealing to do with Moderna.
In the years I served in the British Army, we went from a real sized "Army Group" on Exercise Lion Heart 1984, where we had 900 tanks and 130,000 deployable personnel. Down to 31 Brigades in all, with only 14 Brigades deployable that's 35,000 personnel, in the Iraq War (Op Telic) 2003. I expect it is even worse now...
We also have the same problem in France in 1990 we could deploy 150,000 men in a few days fully equipped with 1300 tanks now we could deploy 20,000 fully equipped he might be even worse .
Well let's hope your awesome social programs will save you the next time a Hitler or Putin decide to roll west. The American taxpayer is tired of footing the bill to make up for your weak ass militaries
@@WillieBrownsWeiner The UK are fine even if the british army is weak right now you are a island so if you rebuilt the RAF and the Navy you will be fine they will never invade
I think there is a point to be made about procuring less world class equipment and instead getting more sufficiently capable equipment. It is all well and good having excellent missiles but if you run out in 5 days of conflict then you haven't gained much.
Two carriers. one doesn’t work and hasn’t any planes anyway. Not enough assets to protect them even if they could go to sea. Type 45 destroyers don’t work and if they did there’s only six of them. Our frigates are out of date and being replaced by a force half the size. That’s just the navy :-/
@@davidrobertsemail one carrier has had a serious issue, true. The other has 20 something planes however. The type 45s had an issue with warm waters, the issue is being fixed under what's known as the Power Improvement Program. 1 or 2 are already fixed. The rest are only good for colder waters, fair enough. And yes, only 6 is far too few. Our frigates are old, true, yet they are apparently still quite capable at their main role of anti-submarine warfare. That being said, we have waited too long to replace them and they will be extremely past their best by the time we retire them. Or we will retire them before we get replacements, which will put our surface combatants uncomfortably low. Our frigates are being replaced 1 for 1. The 8 that do anti-submarine warfare are being replaced by 8 anti-submarine warfare type 26s, the type 26 is quite a large upgrade over the type 23. The 5 that are designated as general purpose are being replaced by 5 general purpose type 31s. The general purpose replacements will not be that much of an upgrade unfortunately (better anti-ship missiles are pretty much it). There is also the potential for more frigates under the type 32 class, which might just end up being another batch of type 31s. The type 32 is not a done deal by any means however and is at risk of being scrapped pretty much as soon as their is any budgetary issue.
As a non military person, but very interested in the security of my island, I’m ashamed of this and previous governments for allowing our defence forces to apparently “wither on the vine”. The big thing for me is the apparent waste that takes place during procurement eg The Ajax as one example. Over budget, over time and still not fit for service. Another example I’d the prop shaft problems on the aircraft carrier Prince of Wales. This by all accounts was “known about, and warned of” a long time ago! I’m sure there are other examples that could be listed by those with more knowledge than me. With all the waste, and the millions (billions?) it costs us as tax payers, IS ANYONE HELD RESPONSIBLE? I can imagine the politicians dive for cover (Ben Wallace is an honourable exception!) , the Civil Service and the senior post holders in the MOD must hide in a bunker, so as not too take the blame? I’m getting on now, but in my lifetime I’ve seen our forces used for both military and political ends by governments when it suits them. When it doesn’t suit them, and they want to save a Bob or two they start having reviews etc! By this time senior officers who should know better, bend their collective knees, because they don’t want to upset the pension or gong apple cart! Who’s left holding the baby - the grunts! What could possibly go wrong?
Hollowing out means the loss of institutional knowledge and the capacity to rebuild said knowledge in a certain timeframe. It however is alot of capacity that that army inherently does not need concern itself with. Ammunition or the goods it uses are products that come out of the private industry. What the MoD needs is a few factories for base army goods. Rifles, munitions, clothes, boots, atgms exc. Basicly, what Brittain needs is a Defense industry built and led by government.
These Johnson and Sunak types are human filth, they have no history with the British military so they just view it like an asset in their stock portfolio.
My father turned up in Egypt in 39’ with what was basically WW1 European kit unsuitable for North Africa, and a broom stale to drill with, he then went to Korea in the early 50’s and was given worn out kit , he had to go begging to the Americans who he was working closely with for help, so what’s new with our slothful Govt.
Poland a much smaller economy has start to invest to the point they will have one of the largest, modern armed military force in Europe. You’re telling me the UK can’t afford to rearm its military?
It's choice not impossibility. P9lands choice, neighbouring Russia, is different to ours. (It's also worth noting it's Poland's army that gettingbthemmassive uplift, that is the least of Britains military)
@@RoachChaddjr Poland is on course to overtake our economy and standard of living in the coming years! We'll be getting handouts from them when we rejoin the EU!
It wasn't so long ago I was hearing, ''why are we giving money to the military, when people are having to resort to food banks''. Even before then, political procrastination and obdurate ignorance, couldn't see the need to maintain a level of readiness and seemed to completely ignore what a potential there was in all our armed forces, for innovation and that higher standard that encouraged young people to want a career to learn skills, as well as so many opportunities to travel and enhance their own capabilities. Then politics threw a blanket over it all aided by the Treasury and that great waster of cash, the Ministry of Defence. When there is no obvious enemy breaking down your door, it is easy for those in parliament to decide to spend the money on anything but defence. There are reasons the military became the poor relation and now when there is a more pressing reason to actually want an effective armed forces, there will still be bureaucrats dragging their feet creating their reasons to bring out more wet blankets.
The army should never fall below 100,000 troops. That should be the absolute minimum. The navy should be about 50,000 minimum and RAF the same. With a reserve force of at least another 50,000. We should upgrade ALL Challenger 2s to challenger 3 and infact start building more tanks or buying more. We need more jets for our 2 aircraft carriers and a shitload more ammunition for everything.
Been saying that we needed to spend more on defense for a couple of decades now. If I could see this was going to happen and others like me , why couldn't all the extremely well paid and supposedly intelligent politicians. Probably corruption.
If there was an optional tax to make up the remaining shortfall the MOD believes it needs after this announcement, I'd happily pay my share. I'm sure there are plenty of others who would too.
I was thinking the same thing, but I'd rather see AI used to massively reduce waste in bureaucracy . I also share your sentiment about paying extra taxes, but must remind you that those with the deepest pockets don't care about the things you care about, they care about paying less tax.
@@carwyngriffiths He's not the only ex-soldier in Westminster by a very long way. Having served doesn't guarantee he's not a politician first and foremost.
@@wessexdruid7598 So? If you put someone in the same bucket just because hes under a tory label, then you are so narrow minded. Not a fan of labour or tories either.
@@Brandon_J The Tory politician ex-soldiers I've known (that I served with) are people I wouldn't ever trust my life with at the time and certainly not the country with, later. I'm not a fan of many politicians, whatever their colour. As a job, it attracts mostly the wrong type of people. Whereas the military has a lot of people who look after others well. But to your specific point - at least in recent history, Tory politicians do not, routinely, tell the truth. They don't dare. Johnson et all have taken the Tories to a very dark place.
Dear Brits, at least take some solace in knowing you have a capable defense minister who understands the importance of infrastructure. Many other NATO countries cannot say the same and are way further hollowed out.
13 years and 5,5 billion later and ajax still hasn't been delivered for service, another few years and maybe it might get the green light for production. No wonder the uk armed forces needs money, the money they get disappears.
I thought it was only the Netherlands with hollowed out military. Now it turns out that a lot of NATO members have been neglecting their armed forces for decades. Shame on us all. We took are safety for granted...again.
Honestly its good that this is now at the forefront of the conversation around Military. but more specifically the Army. The most important thing going forward is that we hold onto a certain percentage of older kit that we have now as a strategic reserve even after the newer kit comes into service. We haven't done that in previous cycles.
The UK can afford to have a top class military in all areas with decent mass to back it up. The problem is the average Joe Public would moan about it being a waste of money and not needed because “we are not at war”
£5bn instead of £11bn for defence and £3bn is for the Aukus deal too so really it's only £2bn. Pathetic. Less than zero when adjusted for inflation probably too. I bet Ben Wallace is fuming.
To all those who want much larger numbers, first we need the proper support for the numbers we have. And frankly that will take all the money we can get when every department is looking for more and we are already spending money we don't have.
It gets even more worrying with the fact that we're still one of the best in Europe alongside France and Poland, over two thirds of every other army is incapable of combat operations and can't be mobilised - we're in trouble
Very proud to be a former British Infanteer and can vouch for your average squaddie, but the reality is in a modern war with modern weapons, we'd be gone in a fortnight
We need more of everything not just ammunition “impressive shop window” is a bit of a stretch when you compare us to China, Russian or the United States or any of the other military powers we are seriously lagging behind
@@regarded9702 We arent lagging behind russia because they dont have trained personell to use the equiptment as well as we can, but we are lagging behind china and almost all of our nato allies when it comes to our plans for the future.
@@mrticatcs658 no they don't have enough well trained personnel but if we run out of bullets to shoot them with they still win. In terms of quality (bar some very specific things) we beat russia easily. The problem is we don't have the munitions reserve to actually go to war. Also, as far as I'm aware most of our nato allies aren't in much better a position. Im pretty sure only the US has the ability to wage a protracted war at the moment and even they'd struggle.
@@mrticatcs658 Russian would wash the uk in a one on one battle and they for the most part are not a very good military anymore under equipped and undertrained but the uk does not have near enough troops and is not equipped near as good as they should be along with everything else said in this video
The journalist says at the end that Britain re-armed just in time to face Nazi Germany. Whilst it's true the British Army was the most motorised force relative to total size in 1939, the losses at Dunkirk meant that the British Isles were virtually naked in August 1940 and we would have been quickly occupied if not for the Royal Navy.
So where has all the money gone, if we’ve got nothing to show for it? It’s hard for some people to put it into context how big £71.4 BILLION is. Theoretically, if you put £100 per day into savings (without interest factored in) it would take you 27,397 years to reach a £billion. Or, if you were able to save £100,000 per year, it would still take you 10,000 years to reach a billion.
Rishi Sunak is an accountant ….knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing….I’m afraid lives will have to be lost or a significant bloodying of the nose suffered and embarrassment caused before a government reacts
I don't understand (I do) how something so obvious to undergrad students of politics and conflict: that Russia has remained a conventional 'threat' since the 'end' of the Cold War (it didn't end) and that tanks will run across the plains of Europe again (they are) and yet the authorities seemed oblivious. So, how come so many documents, papers and policies by the RUSI, other think tanks and the Government have argued for decades that this would never be the case!? Money.
Russian armour cant even roll across the plains of ukraine, let alone poland or germany. Be realistic here, the russian threat disappeared in the 90s....
@@y0Milan not reeeeeeally. There's still a war going on using hardware that would still, in practical terms, need to be neutralised. Given a different set of political circumstances the strategy could be very different. Even if Russia were to try and fail to get to Paris damage would still be done and lives would still be lost, as is happening now. They aren't just a paper bottle of Vodka but have used a degree of unconventional tactics to lay the ground for conventional conflicts. If they aren't a threat of any degree, we should just leave Ukraine to their own defences and tinker with our toybox.
Russia litteraly collapsed in the 90s. There was a period between 1989 and 2004 where Russia posed no threat to the West. Their economy was in shambles, their population starving and the country in ruin. Post Soviet Russia was almost post apocalyptic.
@@y0Milan Ukraine has been at war for the last 9 years. It is much more battle hardened and experienced than the current British army by far. This video talks about the fact that the British army doesn't have enough ammo for example, Ukraine has been stockpiling ammo for a decade now, not to mention soviet reserves, while Britain and especially Germany have been downsizing their military and military storages for the last 30 years. Meaning that in many aspects, Britain and Germany wouldn't be able to stand in Ukraines place.
As one youtuber put it, "the British Wallace and Gromited their way through wwii" and on that note i think the British could probably do it again. But it would be more reassuring if they had a bigger military. Seriously, hopefully all this talk about how the British military is inadequate will get thise politicians heads out of their asses.
Simply not big enough and not enough depth. Various reviews dressed up as cutting their size. Also, they have a catastrophic retention problem that hasn’t been addressed for decades
Talking about a conventional conflict with Russia equivalent to WW2 ignores that in WW2 they had conscription and a war footing economy which left Britain in massive debt for decades. The only way to maintain a massive military for an extended period is to reintroduce conscription and go to a war footing economy.
The MOD has a huge budget but spends it very badly. Most goes on high cost industry projects that contributes little to actual defence but keeps share prices high at the stock exchange and lines the pockets of retired senior officers who get taken on as consultants. One reserve infantry battalion in the midlands has had almost no training over the last 12 months such is the shortage of money
Save a lot of money by getting rid of pen pushers and stop wasting billons on upgradeds to equipment like the warrior that have started then cancelling them half way through.
honestly, the UK is still in better shape then most of Europe when it comes to defense spending. The UK is basically the main reason Ukraine survived because they sent all their AT rockets to Ukraine alone with the US.
I hope Mr Wallace can get his budget request passed through. I hate to think of the UK being all shiny but lacking in the depth to maintain its external appearance.
In an ideal world, doubling our current defence budget would solve most, if not all of our financial shortcomings, militarily. The US spends closer to 4% of their GDP on defence, we currently spend 2.22%. It is entirely feasible to match the US in terms of GDP expenditure. It’s a vicious cycle of incompetent governments cutting spending and then a decade goes by and another government has to try and fix it-always too little too late. Heck, we have two beautiful aircraft carriers and not the jets nor money to operate them 🤦. It’s a farce. When will a government prioritise defence, as we should. We are Europe’s leading military and maritime power, and one of the three truly global powers of the last century. We used to have such a fantastic aviation and maritime industry in this country. The former is basically non-existent and the latter is a fraction of what it once was. We can’t expect to keep the status as a global power, when we can’t-as an island, seafaring nation-even stop inflatable, plastic dinghies crossing the channel. We just waste millions by the week buying out £150pp/pn hotels, rolling tobacco and financial handouts, for thousands of fighting age men that flock here-the overwhelming majority. The government’s priorities are something else… 💀
You started well, but then you blamed foreigners. Unless you start thinking critically you'll always take the easy (and incorrect) option of blaming the wrong targets.
@@VanderlyndenJengold Not blaming foreigners at all, people are very quick to misconstrue the context around what people say and write, nowadays. For the record, those genuinely in need should of course be able to seek asylum and be given the appropriate channels (pun unintended) to do so. However, it must be done the right way and the legal way. Touring mainland Europe and paying 7000 euros to cross over to the UK raises some questions. Genuine desperation and you’d be happy in the first developed nation you step foot in, surely? The current handling isn’t right nor is it sustainable. It is called a crisis for a reason and it needs fixing. I only mentioned it because it’s a pertinent example of vast sums of money being spent, unnecessarily. I think anyone can see that purchasing luxury and boutique hotels is not appropriate nor financially viable. It also does the opposite of helping the situation; it’s more of an advert. Likewise, my comment about fighting age men is merely a truth of it. Families I can empathise with entirely, but a vast majority are men of fighting age… that naturally raises some eyebrows. I was merely highlighting both poor government spending and the incompetence of the government in general-example here surrounding immigration, which shouldn’t be an issue seeing as we all go through immigration when travelling-unless you’re Gary Lineker, that is-whilst living in your 80% white majority suburb in south London 🌝. Anyway, I digress. Blame was never a part of my comment, and my only criticisms were directed at the government. I just used examples to highlight such points, that’s all. You arbitrarily introduced blame, simply by assumption of the topic I used, rather than the actual material I wrote. It highlights this ‘think to reply’ rather than ‘think to respond’, mentality we have in society, nowadays. ‘Blame’ was never a part of my comment, nor did I ever infer it. You made an assumption and introduced that entirely by yourself.
You haven't been a global power in 78 years... Precisely because of budget cuts. South Korea has more power projection than Britain, for the last thirty years. The empire is long dead. Your only hope is to try to catch up.
@@BeingFireRetardant It is. I believe you’re mistaking ‘global power’ for ‘superpower’. Britain is no longer a superpower, the country is too small to build an economy of the size required for such status. However, the UK is still a global power and has not ceased to be so-and never will as a soft power. The country can project itself militarily on a global scale; only the US, Britain and France have blue water navies capable of such power projection. That’s a global military power. Similarly, the UK is the leading soft power on the international stage, having cultural and historical ties that have and continue to influence all parts of the world. Culturally, the UK’s impact has been massive, forging the very democratic world we live in and the freedoms and values those living in the free world continue to live by. It’s the country that introduced the concept of work and industry as we know it, today. It also has the most overseas protectorates, crown dependencies and territories of any nation. It also chairs the commonwealth, where it continues to influence and support developing nations in embracing democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights-as well as economic growth, infrastructure, education, healthcare etc. The UK is very much a global power, both militarily, politically and economically. It’s also a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the worlds’ only ever hyper-power.
@@dWFnZWVr Go to the deepest corners of Africa, Asia, Australasia and you will still find British influence everywhere in many forms e.g castles, architecture(the main capital cities and towns were planned and designed by the Brits), factories that have employed people for many decades and a lot still stand to this day, hospitals, hotels, vast agricultural farmlands that were owned by lords. I definitely agree no other country will ever top that kind of influence, i don't even think it's possible in modern times
I tried to join the airforce, practically impossible. Got contact call from them for each app then never heard from then again. I chased them up, they told me to wait. Nothing. I gave up.
And when the MOD stop chucking millions of pounds away on terrible over costed procurement and infrastructure deals, they might eventually be able to use their money wisely. There is insane and almost criminal wastage at some levels, when it comes to how the MOD are ripped off by those who supply equipment. That needs a full and thorough investigation.
Between 1923 and 1935 Britain was spending about 2.5% of GDP on defence. In 1936 it started to rearm, and in 1938 it was spending 3.8% of GDP on defence. At the time of Munich, Britain could deploy two divisions to Europe. The Germans had 100 divisions and they invaded France in 1940 with over 140 divisions. Britain deployed 13 divisions to France in 1940. Britain could never compete with the Germans on land and instead focused its spending on the RAF and navy. The UK became impossible to invade. The first Hurricanes were delivered in 1937 and the first Spitfires arrived in August 1938. Fighting a land war anywhere is probably beyond us now. We can't invade China or Russia. We probably need to double the size of the navy and airforce and should be able to protect the sea lanes.
The scale of the UK economy, a midsize European country, puts limits on our military spending ambitions. The carrier program is an example of over the top folly. A well equipped armed forces of a size thats sustainable.
Too many defence reviews. Started back in the 90’s when I joined up and continued throughout my 22 years. Cut after cut after cut. Now HM Armed Forces are a shadow of their former selves. So often the goodwill of the personnel is the only reason things actually get done.
What about looking after the good people who volunteer for service!? Cleaning up the barracks at most bases would be a place to start..... fixing electricity and plumbing .... so the quality of life for poorly paid soldiers is improved. Improve pay and benefits, to keep experienced staff in place for a career, as well as increase the drive for more people to volunteer. Alas, no. Let's just waste millions - not just waste it... but let those soldiers see it clearly being wasted, day in, day out. That'll motivate the workforce. Seriously, the MPs and Generals need to have a good walk around the bases and rub shoulders with soldiers - without reprisals for them speaking up about the issues on base, and actually learn what a soldier's life is actually like right now. Maybe then, you won't have problems retaining staff and recruiting more.
The way this official uses the phrase "Hollow Out" is vastly different from the way it was used by the American armed forces. The Americans were describing a situation where the actual manpower, or troop count was drawn down. At one point it went way too far, resulting a "Skeletal" force.
Ben Wallace, has probably been the only defence minister who has actually not only listened to his advisors but has the military background to appreciate and act on the countries defence requirements.
We should be matching USA's 4% GDP spend on the military in today current climate, making sure we have a functional fighting force, highly equipped, highly trained. We need aeroplanes for the aircraft carriers asap.
That because we did not send troops into Ukraine before the invasion we knew six weeks before the invasion that Russia was going to invade. Sendng 30 thousand Nato troops in Putin would not have attacked. You all only have yourself to blame.
It's nice to know that if the worse did happen we would have one of the worlds best militaries, for about a month before we ran out of everything from fuel to bullets.
Yes nice state if affairs think ill live in 1984 when 50 000 were in Germany.
and people.
More likely two weeks at the usage rates in Ukraine!
Two weeks worth of supply in a Ukraine style conflict the mod said, because you lot gave Ukraine half your vehicles and most of your ammunition. 🤣
Make more. Problem solved.
This is absolutely shameful. All the leaders involved in those cuts should be publicly shamed.The thing is though, you ask anyone in the army, they'd have told you of this years ago.
If the last 13 years have taught us anything it's that the supporters of those leaders will follow them despite every lie and broken promise. Both the voters and thee usual press and commentators.
Tory crime syndicate 13 years of greed and corruption
You don't need a military when you use proxies to fight your battles for you.
@@chadimirputin2282 … as putler is trying to do. Wonder if he has struck a deal with North Korea yet?
@@Joe90V the shovels will do the trick, the shovel brigades are working wonders. 💪
Ben Wallace is the best Defence Secretary the UK has had in 50 years. A real military man is what`s needed for times like these.
Alas, he talks big but hasn’t really delivered anything. In the recent budget there was talk, but no commitment to a substantial, above inflation increase in spending. Under his watch the Army has become a second tier force, by size and capability, whilst the RN and RAF have good kit but insufficient numbers to sustain any operation.
@@jonesyjones7626 that's not necessarily his fault, he doesn't get to choose the budget.
@@dimwitsixtytwelve But he has a big role to play with procuring equipment... this man has let the army slip back into 1840 with less then 100000 soldiers and a very small navy. And to say in the last 50 years makes me think you weren’t alive 50 even 40 years ago as the BOR alone was the size of our current military any way but yet again people falling for the media lies it’s insane how many people are fooled on a regular basis. The highest wastes of money in the army is procurement so I wonder where all the money has gone if they’ve only got a weeks worth of ammunition?
@@jonesyjones7626 you're dumb af.
...who thinks Britain's great advantage over Russia is that we love gays 🙄
At least their General had the balls to stand up and say in public what was happening. Too often senior officers within western militaries act like politicians rather than leaders of fighting formations. I'm looking at you New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
I wouldn’t criticise Australia, they’ve made some of the biggest improvements recently out of the countries you’ve listed, especially given how their gdp and population is a lot smaller.
@@natedaninja3171 true, but senior Officers in the ADF do act more like politicians rather than leaders of fighting formations.
@@damolux3388 well most people in Australia don’t really want a war with China unless it’s absolutely necessary, under a previous government our defence minister was basically trying to start a war . The general culture should change pretty soon, as Australia’s defence strategic review will be announced in April, shifting the country from a 1990s geopolitical viewpoint to acknowledging China and a threat.
@@natedaninja3171 Australia deserves plenty of criticism.. no ammo, no fuel, almost no tanks, not enough artillery
The ADF’s top brass is a steaming pile of careerist officers that are nothing but Yes-men to the politicians who’d sooner abandon the troops in lieu of some political gesturing. Yes, some improvements have/are being made but at a rate and quantity far less than what is required, not to mention at least 10 years too late.
"An impressive shop window while all the shelves are empty" is accurate and to the point. It's a sad reality at this moment in time, but first step to changing things is to first recognise our shortcomings
Very much like the old State stores in the Soviet Union : Shop windows full of goods, once inside the shelves were empty !!
Start with capita get rid of them and let the armed forces handle recruiting in house like they have done for hundreds of years
Recently came out that they struggle to even recruit because they shoot themselves in the foot with of some woke recruitment quote they have to meet each. They have to recruit a certain amount of ethnic minorities each week or month and in doing so they deny anyone who isn’t an ethnic minorities (or at least not seen as one) to help reach that goal. It cane out like 2 weeks ago i think
Agreed, it took me 13 months to get from applying to giving my Oath of Allegiance. Far too long.
These organisations are all run by political "buddies" and these contracts are basically doing favours for each other, when they discuss this behaviour in the developing world they call it cronyism.
@@emanuel1940 for me only 4 months
get rid of all those civie contracts, they rob the military blind in every sector they're involved. Its shameful contracting our engineering and logistical roles to these civie groups that coast 10x as much as using the personal you already have in said branches.
The British army is sounding more German. Even here in the US we're finding out we can't produce as much ammunition as we thought we could.
It's a maths game but a maths game that should always be airing on the side of over estimating demand because ammunition can be stored and always used up in the hundreds of thousands in a single month of extended training packages, let alone a full scale conflict with a peer level adversary. Even in Afghanistan against a non conventional foe, the troops were burning through ammunition stocks continually until the logistics were adjusted.
We wouldn't have that luxury against a peer level adversary who contests us on every front (land, sea, air and space) and has the capability to reach out and touch us from another continent over the seas.
Therefore, it makes strategic sense to over estimate ammunition requirements so it gives some method of absorbing the shock of industry and therefore logisitc complications that arise when the peer level adversary is bombing convoys and hitting industry's that supply the war effort.
This constant running by the bare bones is suicide. The MP's don't run their jobs like this, they always have enough fuel in their cars, helicopters and planes, they always have enough logistics in place for them to do their jobs. It's not asking much for them to ensure the areas they are elected to oversee are also give the same, if not better treatment.
@@discipleaj yeah I totally agree with you on all your points.
To be fair we aren’t in a war time state we are currently in a peace time production state for quiet sometime even when we ramp production
Its a good thing that you are now finding it out now, in peace time, so that you can make up for your shortcomings during wartime.
Because American is distributing its guns and ammunition to boys in the hood, and men who wants to shoot a wooden cut out of a man…….thats a simple fix for America.
Agree on the 1930 moment in more then one sense and about the shop window. But it isn't only the UK but practically all of the European NATO countries that face this. And blaming the banking crisis and COVID goes only so far ...
Well Greece is pretty good on terms of size, equipment and personal mostly because of the escalations with Turkey for close to 200 years now
@@JackkDevil lol think I said pratically all somewhere. Althought regarding Greece the Ottomans where a considerable bigger threath than interbellum Turkey (200 year timespan). Current Turkey IS a NATO member but is generally untested in more then what is generally considererd policing operations (fx Kurds) as far as I know . Anyone know of a Turkish operation / detachement UNDER the NATO umbrella besides the earlier mentioned policing actions???
The money is there it’s just that governments have decided that the money was more needed elsewhere, which to be said there is an argument for.
its not covid, but lockdowns, the stuff that happened to destroy businesses and military capability was fully the government's fault by implementing lockdowns.
Except that Putin isn't Hitler, the Russians have neither the interest in nor the capability of threatening Britain in a conventional war and Britain derives no benefit whatsoever in pursuing the Washington neocon agenda in Ukraine, the Middle East or elsewhere.
It’s simple. If Britain faces a threat send in the politicians and civilians in the defence department as infantry. Maybe then money will start flowing!
Good idea, but they would not agree to it, wild horses couldnt drag them into a dangerous job. The coward dies a thousand deaths, the valiant die but once.
What have civilians got to do with it you tedious fascist?
@@zoiders The idea is that if these civvies are so keen to have a war, let them have a spell in the infantry to see how they like it at the sharp end.
@@zoiders So in a threat situation you’d do nothing? Thanks for the compliment btw. LOL
@@bernardedwards8461 I know, but it seems only if they’re in danger is anything done. At present they both seem detached from reality. Why should the soldiers pay for politicians ineptness?
Well, according to the Daily Express the Armed forces are getting £5 billion over TWO years. I think it's £3 billion for ammo, then another £2 billion to do with AUKUS. The cuts are still going ahead nothing else at all in the budget, I'm utterly disgusted with Rishi and Hunt.
In fact, I think MI5, MI6 and the MET need to get investigating. Hunt is clearly in the pocket of China with his wife's company doing propaganda for the CCP. Rishi is also looking very fishy to, with big money tied to him and some dodgy dealing to do with Moderna.
Russia is is using its India allies to spy on the UK, and now they have an inside man in No10
Sunaks links to India through his father in law needs looking at too! Remember India is in Russias pocket too!
I've read several books about Mi6 and in situations like these they actually tend not to do anything
@@dabtican4953 dont need whole books to understand that, just good longterm memory regarding scandals.
In the years I served in the British Army, we went from a real sized "Army Group" on Exercise Lion Heart 1984, where we had 900 tanks and 130,000 deployable personnel. Down to 31 Brigades in all, with only 14 Brigades deployable that's 35,000 personnel, in the Iraq War (Op Telic) 2003. I expect it is even worse now...
We also have the same problem in France in 1990 we could deploy 150,000 men in a few days fully equipped with 1300 tanks now we could deploy 20,000 fully equipped he might be even worse .
Well let's hope your awesome social programs will save you the next time a Hitler or Putin decide to roll west. The American taxpayer is tired of footing the bill to make up for your weak ass militaries
@@WillieBrownsWeiner The UK are fine even if the british army is weak right now you are a island so if you rebuilt the RAF and the Navy you will be fine they will never invade
@@Mugen-c5h There is so many Chinese soldiers they'd flood the channel an walk over eachother onto land. Lol
@@WillieBrownsWeiner Perhaps your government could decide if it is really a democracy or Putin's Lap Dog..
I think there is a point to be made about procuring less world class equipment and instead getting more sufficiently capable equipment. It is all well and good having excellent missiles but if you run out in 5 days of conflict then you haven't gained much.
Two carriers. one doesn’t work and hasn’t any planes anyway.
Not enough assets to protect them even if they could go to sea.
Type 45 destroyers don’t work and if they did there’s only six of them.
Our frigates are out of date and being replaced by a force half the size.
That’s just the navy :-/
@@davidrobertsemail one carrier has had a serious issue, true. The other has 20 something planes however.
The type 45s had an issue with warm waters, the issue is being fixed under what's known as the Power Improvement Program. 1 or 2 are already fixed. The rest are only good for colder waters, fair enough. And yes, only 6 is far too few.
Our frigates are old, true, yet they are apparently still quite capable at their main role of anti-submarine warfare. That being said, we have waited too long to replace them and they will be extremely past their best by the time we retire them. Or we will retire them before we get replacements, which will put our surface combatants uncomfortably low.
Our frigates are being replaced 1 for 1. The 8 that do anti-submarine warfare are being replaced by 8 anti-submarine warfare type 26s, the type 26 is quite a large upgrade over the type 23. The 5 that are designated as general purpose are being replaced by 5 general purpose type 31s. The general purpose replacements will not be that much of an upgrade unfortunately (better anti-ship missiles are pretty much it).
There is also the potential for more frigates under the type 32 class, which might just end up being another batch of type 31s. The type 32 is not a done deal by any means however and is at risk of being scrapped pretty much as soon as their is any budgetary issue.
@@regarded9702 I didn’t realize so many of our frigates had already been retired.
It’s worse than I thought.
Depressing :-/
@@davidrobertsemail yeah we are going to be in a rough spot for the next few years until the new ships start being combat ready.
Fully agree. Most is a waste of money- our GPMG has been around decades and is an amazing tool- if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
As a non military person, but very interested in the security of my island, I’m ashamed of this and previous governments for allowing our defence forces to apparently “wither on the vine”. The big thing for me is the apparent waste that takes place during procurement eg The Ajax as one example. Over budget, over time and still not fit for service. Another example I’d the prop shaft problems on the aircraft carrier Prince of Wales. This by all accounts was “known about, and warned of” a long time ago! I’m sure there are other examples that could be listed by those with more knowledge than me. With all the waste, and the millions (billions?) it costs us as tax payers, IS ANYONE HELD RESPONSIBLE? I can imagine the politicians dive for cover (Ben Wallace is an honourable exception!) , the Civil Service and the senior post holders in the MOD must hide in a bunker, so as not too take the blame? I’m getting on now, but in my lifetime I’ve seen our forces used for both military and political ends by governments when it suits them. When it doesn’t suit them, and they want to save a Bob or two they start having reviews etc! By this time senior officers who should know better, bend their collective knees, because they don’t want to upset the pension or gong apple cart! Who’s left holding the baby - the grunts! What could possibly go wrong?
Hollowing out means the loss of institutional knowledge and the capacity to rebuild said knowledge in a certain timeframe.
It however is alot of capacity that that army inherently does not need concern itself with. Ammunition or the goods it uses are products that come out of the private industry.
What the MoD needs is a few factories for base army goods. Rifles, munitions, clothes, boots, atgms exc. Basicly, what Brittain needs is a Defense industry built and led by government.
Pretty much government run factories would be good.
They made me compulsory redundant short of my pension
Done by a pen pusher who got a bonus for his money saving efforts?
These Johnson and Sunak types are human filth, they have no history with the British military so they just view it like an asset in their stock portfolio.
Brutal.
You on Herrick at the time ?.
@@williammurray3914 I’ve done telic 03 and herrick 08-10
My father turned up in Egypt in 39’ with what was basically WW1 European kit unsuitable for North Africa, and a broom stale to drill with, he then went to Korea in the early 50’s and was given worn out kit , he had to go begging to the Americans who he was working closely with for help, so what’s new with our slothful Govt.
Poland a much smaller economy has start to invest to the point they will have one of the largest, modern armed military force in Europe. You’re telling me the UK can’t afford to rearm its military?
It's choice not impossibility. P9lands choice, neighbouring Russia, is different to ours. (It's also worth noting it's Poland's army that gettingbthemmassive uplift, that is the least of Britains military)
Not when all of the money goes through countless (Tory donating) middle men!
@@garagenigel Yeah was about to type something like this
Poland gets European handouts (especially from Britain), so I'm not at all surprised they have the budget for it
@@RoachChaddjr Poland is on course to overtake our economy and standard of living in the coming years! We'll be getting handouts from them when we rejoin the EU!
Good points, well made.
It wasn't so long ago I was hearing, ''why are we giving money to the military, when people are having to resort to food banks''. Even before then, political procrastination and obdurate ignorance, couldn't see the need to maintain a level of readiness and seemed to completely ignore what a potential there was in all our armed forces, for innovation and that higher standard that encouraged young people to want a career to learn skills, as well as so many opportunities to travel and enhance their own capabilities. Then politics threw a blanket over it all aided by the Treasury and that great waster of cash, the Ministry of Defence. When there is no obvious enemy breaking down your door, it is easy for those in parliament to decide to spend the money on anything but defence. There are reasons the military became the poor relation and now when there is a more pressing reason to actually want an effective armed forces, there will still be bureaucrats dragging their feet creating their reasons to bring out more wet blankets.
Yep.
Doesn’t help when the MOD couldn’t procure themselves out of a wet paper bag. How many billions wasted cause of that ineptitude?
The army should never fall below 100,000 troops. That should be the absolute minimum. The navy should be about 50,000 minimum and RAF the same. With a reserve force of at least another 50,000. We should upgrade ALL Challenger 2s to challenger 3 and infact start building more tanks or buying more. We need more jets for our 2 aircraft carriers and a shitload more ammunition for everything.
Been saying that we needed to spend more on defense for a couple of decades now. If I could see this was going to happen and others like me , why couldn't all the extremely well paid and supposedly intelligent politicians.
Probably corruption.
Well said Jim, I totally agree but this country is currently run by idiots and Minority Groups and as you say, for decades.
Too busy selling it off to other countries
What's to see? It's no surprise if you spend more you get more.
We don't NEED to spend more! The French have a more capable and larger military for a lot less spending!
@@garagenigel not really it has a bigger army, smaller navy.
If there was an optional tax to make up the remaining shortfall the MOD believes it needs after this announcement, I'd happily pay my share. I'm sure there are plenty of others who would too.
I was thinking the same thing, but I'd rather see AI used to massively reduce waste in bureaucracy .
I also share your sentiment about paying extra taxes, but must remind you that those with the deepest pockets don't care about the things you care about, they care about paying less tax.
I wouldn't
optional tax?🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@XNY_Music the people who benefit most from foreign war expeditions (capitalist gangster class) avoid tax, no PAYE for them
I don't think you realise how big of a hole we are in military wise. The latest 5Bn is nothing compared to what is needed.
Ben Wallace is the only guy in Westminster who tells the truth !
He's a Tory politician.
@@wessexdruid7598he’s a military man, all this American politics coming to the Uk is pathetic.
@@carwyngriffiths He's not the only ex-soldier in Westminster by a very long way. Having served doesn't guarantee he's not a politician first and foremost.
@@wessexdruid7598 So? If you put someone in the same bucket just because hes under a tory label, then you are so narrow minded. Not a fan of labour or tories either.
@@Brandon_J The Tory politician ex-soldiers I've known (that I served with) are people I wouldn't ever trust my life with at the time and certainly not the country with, later. I'm not a fan of many politicians, whatever their colour. As a job, it attracts mostly the wrong type of people. Whereas the military has a lot of people who look after others well.
But to your specific point - at least in recent history, Tory politicians do not, routinely, tell the truth. They don't dare. Johnson et all have taken the Tories to a very dark place.
What are the numbers of those in uniform compared the pen pushers in these cut backs ?
Dear Brits, at least take some solace in knowing you have a capable defense minister who understands the importance of infrastructure. Many other NATO countries cannot say the same and are way further hollowed out.
13 years and 5,5 billion later and ajax still hasn't been delivered for service, another few years and maybe it might get the green light for production. No wonder the uk armed forces needs money, the money they get disappears.
Production is long underway, thats part of the problem.
I admire your boot licking potential comrade write 9 more comments like this to get 1 ruble
Says it all former General speaks up maybe you should of spoke up when you were serving
I thought it was only the Netherlands with hollowed out military. Now it turns out that a lot of NATO members have been neglecting their armed forces for decades. Shame on us all. We took are safety for granted...again.
This is the news broadcast which the entirety of our nation needs to hear, and I think that is the fundamental problem.
Honestly its good that this is now at the forefront of the conversation around Military. but more specifically the Army. The most important thing going forward is that we hold onto a certain percentage of older kit that we have now as a strategic reserve even after the newer kit comes into service. We haven't done that in previous cycles.
The UK can afford to have a top class military in all areas with decent mass to back it up. The problem is the average Joe Public would moan about it being a waste of money and not needed because “we are not at war”
£5bn instead of £11bn for defence and £3bn is for the Aukus deal too so really it's only £2bn. Pathetic. Less than zero when adjusted for inflation probably too. I bet Ben Wallace is fuming.
To all those who want much larger numbers, first we need the proper support for the numbers we have. And frankly that will take all the money we can get when every department is looking for more and we are already spending money we don't have.
Yes we do ! Just that the the very wealthy don’t fund anything in this nation and the government put it all on the working class taxpayers
$108B Not Enough! Germany Says Its Defense Budget Insufficient To Overhaul Military Amid Russia-Ukraine War
It gets even more worrying with the fact that we're still one of the best in Europe alongside France and Poland, over two thirds of every other army is incapable of combat operations and can't be mobilised - we're in trouble
It's almost like 40+ years of de-industrialization, privatizing Crown armouries, and overseas adventurism has consequences...
Very proud to be a former British Infanteer and can vouch for your average squaddie, but the reality is in a modern war with modern weapons, we'd be gone in a fortnight
We need more of everything not just ammunition “impressive shop window” is a bit of a stretch when you compare us to China, Russian or the United States or any of the other military powers we are seriously lagging behind
@@theincrement4898 russia has a lot of stuff. Even if our equipment is better russia has 10 times as much. So yes, we are lagging behind russia.
@@regarded9702 We arent lagging behind russia because they dont have trained personell to use the equiptment as well as we can, but we are lagging behind china and almost all of our nato allies when it comes to our plans for the future.
@@mrticatcs658 no they don't have enough well trained personnel but if we run out of bullets to shoot them with they still win. In terms of quality (bar some very specific things) we beat russia easily. The problem is we don't have the munitions reserve to actually go to war. Also, as far as I'm aware most of our nato allies aren't in much better a position. Im pretty sure only the US has the ability to wage a protracted war at the moment and even they'd struggle.
@@mrticatcs658 Russian would wash the uk in a one on one battle and they for the most part are not a very good military anymore under equipped and undertrained but the uk does not have near enough troops and is not equipped near as good as they should be along with everything else said in this video
@@regarded9702 it doesn’t matter if your the best soldier in the world if you don’t have bullets to shoot and shells to fire you’ll lose the war.
The journalist says at the end that Britain re-armed just in time to face Nazi Germany. Whilst it's true the British Army was the most motorised force relative to total size in 1939, the losses at Dunkirk meant that the British Isles were virtually naked in August 1940 and we would have been quickly occupied if not for the Royal Navy.
In Forces News We Trust
We need at least a full time army at 150,000 with 25,000 reservist
So where has all the money gone, if we’ve got nothing to show for it?
It’s hard for some people to put it into context how big £71.4 BILLION is. Theoretically, if you put £100 per day into savings (without interest factored in) it would take you 27,397 years to reach a £billion. Or, if you were able to save £100,000 per year, it would still take you 10,000 years to reach a billion.
Rishi Sunak is an accountant ….knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing….I’m afraid lives will have to be lost or a significant bloodying of the nose suffered and embarrassment caused before a government reacts
Let's not pretend this is his fault, he hasn't been in office for a year and the decline of the military has been going on for years
@@RoachChaddjr yes Brad ……but it’s not really an excuse just to tread water till the next election is it .
@@adrianrichards247 I agree. I hope he addresses this issue soon.
I don't understand (I do) how something so obvious to undergrad students of politics and conflict: that Russia has remained a conventional 'threat' since the 'end' of the Cold War (it didn't end) and that tanks will run across the plains of Europe again (they are) and yet the authorities seemed oblivious. So, how come so many documents, papers and policies by the RUSI, other think tanks and the Government have argued for decades that this would never be the case!? Money.
Russian armour cant even roll across the plains of ukraine, let alone poland or germany. Be realistic here, the russian threat disappeared in the 90s....
@@y0Milan not reeeeeeally. There's still a war going on using hardware that would still, in practical terms, need to be neutralised. Given a different set of political circumstances the strategy could be very different. Even if Russia were to try and fail to get to Paris damage would still be done and lives would still be lost, as is happening now. They aren't just a paper bottle of Vodka but have used a degree of unconventional tactics to lay the ground for conventional conflicts. If they aren't a threat of any degree, we should just leave Ukraine to their own defences and tinker with our toybox.
@@gareth2397NATO is the context of our defence, NATO massively out spends, out mans and out techs Russia.
Russia litteraly collapsed in the 90s. There was a period between 1989 and 2004 where Russia posed no threat to the West. Their economy was in shambles, their population starving and the country in ruin. Post Soviet Russia was almost post apocalyptic.
@@y0Milan Ukraine has been at war for the last 9 years. It is much more battle hardened and experienced than the current British army by far. This video talks about the fact that the British army doesn't have enough ammo for example, Ukraine has been stockpiling ammo for a decade now, not to mention soviet reserves, while Britain and especially Germany have been downsizing their military and military storages for the last 30 years. Meaning that in many aspects, Britain and Germany wouldn't be able to stand in Ukraines place.
The UK never had enough to do the job - we always relied on the USA.
It's the same bunch of people in power decrying this hollowing out that seemed silent years ago.
As one youtuber put it, "the British Wallace and Gromited their way through wwii" and on that note i think the British could probably do it again. But it would be more reassuring if they had a bigger military. Seriously, hopefully all this talk about how the British military is inadequate will get thise politicians heads out of their asses.
Ben Wallace seems to be best of the MPs currently, shame the rest don't speak some of the trust
Bring back national service
The fact they are making it so public hopefully they do something about it.
so basically anyone wanting to join the army might as well just go for the foreign legion or move to america become a citizen and join theirs
should have listened to sir oswald mosley smh
Simply not big enough and not enough depth. Various reviews dressed up as cutting their size. Also, they have a catastrophic retention problem that hasn’t been addressed for decades
Talking about a conventional conflict with Russia equivalent to WW2 ignores that in WW2 they had conscription and a war footing economy which left Britain in massive debt for decades. The only way to maintain a massive military for an extended period is to reintroduce conscription and go to a war footing economy.
Retiring the c-130j fleet this year as well for the A400m which spends more time under maintenance
Y'all need to fix this stuff because I have this strange feeling we're all about to get into a BIG one. We're going to need you
The MOD has a huge budget but spends it very badly. Most goes on high cost industry projects that contributes little to actual defence but keeps share prices high at the stock exchange and lines the pockets of retired senior officers who get taken on as consultants. One reserve infantry battalion in the midlands has had almost no training over the last 12 months such is the shortage of money
@ James kellard. Yeah on Boris Johnson's wallpaper and a sunak family holiday
@@da90sReAlvloc No political party is exempt, liebours record is no better
@@jameskellard5075 really! I beg to differ! We had the world's most experienced military under Labour! Now look at it!
Scrap the foreign aid budget and spend It on the military
Canada is in the same boat! No updated weapons for years, been dealing on fighter jets for 10 years!
Save a lot of money by getting rid of pen pushers and stop wasting billons on upgradeds to equipment like the warrior that have started then cancelling them half way through.
honestly, the UK is still in better shape then most of Europe when it comes to defense spending. The UK is basically the main reason Ukraine survived because they sent all their AT rockets to Ukraine alone with the US.
I hope Mr Wallace can get his budget request passed through. I hate to think of the UK being all shiny but lacking in the depth to maintain its external appearance.
The people responsible for the hollowing out of the armed forces should be immediately arrested and life in prison hard labour camp
The voter. Ultimately governments haven't spent because it doesn't win votes.
In an ideal world, doubling our current defence budget would solve most, if not all of our financial shortcomings, militarily. The US spends closer to 4% of their GDP on defence, we currently spend 2.22%. It is entirely feasible to match the US in terms of GDP expenditure. It’s a vicious cycle of incompetent governments cutting spending and then a decade goes by and another government has to try and fix it-always too little too late. Heck, we have two beautiful aircraft carriers and not the jets nor money to operate them 🤦. It’s a farce. When will a government prioritise defence, as we should. We are Europe’s leading military and maritime power, and one of the three truly global powers of the last century. We used to have such a fantastic aviation and maritime industry in this country. The former is basically non-existent and the latter is a fraction of what it once was. We can’t expect to keep the status as a global power, when we can’t-as an island, seafaring nation-even stop inflatable, plastic dinghies crossing the channel. We just waste millions by the week buying out £150pp/pn hotels, rolling tobacco and financial handouts, for thousands of fighting age men that flock here-the overwhelming majority. The government’s priorities are something else… 💀
You started well, but then you blamed foreigners. Unless you start thinking critically you'll always take the easy (and incorrect) option of blaming the wrong targets.
@@VanderlyndenJengold Not blaming foreigners at all, people are very quick to misconstrue the context around what people say and write, nowadays. For the record, those genuinely in need should of course be able to seek asylum and be given the appropriate channels (pun unintended) to do so. However, it must be done the right way and the legal way. Touring mainland Europe and paying 7000 euros to cross over to the UK raises some questions. Genuine desperation and you’d be happy in the first developed nation you step foot in, surely? The current handling isn’t right nor is it sustainable. It is called a crisis for a reason and it needs fixing. I only mentioned it because it’s a pertinent example of vast sums of money being spent, unnecessarily. I think anyone can see that purchasing luxury and boutique hotels is not appropriate nor financially viable. It also does the opposite of helping the situation; it’s more of an advert. Likewise, my comment about fighting age men is merely a truth of it. Families I can empathise with entirely, but a vast majority are men of fighting age… that naturally raises some eyebrows. I was merely highlighting both poor government spending and the incompetence of the government in general-example here surrounding immigration, which shouldn’t be an issue seeing as we all go through immigration when travelling-unless you’re Gary Lineker, that is-whilst living in your 80% white majority suburb in south London 🌝. Anyway, I digress. Blame was never a part of my comment, and my only criticisms were directed at the government. I just used examples to highlight such points, that’s all. You arbitrarily introduced blame, simply by assumption of the topic I used, rather than the actual material I wrote. It highlights this ‘think to reply’ rather than ‘think to respond’, mentality we have in society, nowadays. ‘Blame’ was never a part of my comment, nor did I ever infer it. You made an assumption and introduced that entirely by yourself.
You haven't been a global power in 78 years...
Precisely because of budget cuts. South Korea has more power projection than Britain, for the last thirty years. The empire is long dead. Your only hope is to try to catch up.
@@BeingFireRetardant It is. I believe you’re mistaking ‘global power’ for ‘superpower’. Britain is no longer a superpower, the country is too small to build an economy of the size required for such status. However, the UK is still a global power and has not ceased to be so-and never will as a soft power. The country can project itself militarily on a global scale; only the US, Britain and France have blue water navies capable of such power projection. That’s a global military power. Similarly, the UK is the leading soft power on the international stage, having cultural and historical ties that have and continue to influence all parts of the world. Culturally, the UK’s impact has been massive, forging the very democratic world we live in and the freedoms and values those living in the free world continue to live by. It’s the country that introduced the concept of work and industry as we know it, today. It also has the most overseas protectorates, crown dependencies and territories of any nation. It also chairs the commonwealth, where it continues to influence and support developing nations in embracing democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights-as well as economic growth, infrastructure, education, healthcare etc.
The UK is very much a global power, both militarily, politically and economically. It’s also a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the worlds’ only ever hyper-power.
@@dWFnZWVr Go to the deepest corners of Africa, Asia, Australasia and you will still find British influence everywhere in many forms e.g castles, architecture(the main capital cities and towns were planned and designed by the Brits), factories that have employed people for many decades and a lot still stand to this day, hospitals, hotels, vast agricultural farmlands that were owned by lords.
I definitely agree no other country will ever top that kind of influence, i don't even think it's possible in modern times
i am mildly annoyed that we do this in a periodic fashion rather than a continueous one, regarding our logistics and infrastructure.
When my old man used to work for the MOD he said all they did was find ways to spend money. Sounds like the problem is deeper-rooted than we think
They over cashed the "Peace" dividend.
I tried to join the airforce, practically impossible. Got contact call from them for each app then never heard from then again. I chased them up, they told me to wait. Nothing. I gave up.
Your not white are you , if so your not wanted .
All the gear and no idea..
I understand people trying to get back in and still under contract (22) have hit hurdle after hurdle and poor communication.
And when the MOD stop chucking millions of pounds away on terrible over costed procurement and infrastructure deals, they might eventually be able to use their money wisely. There is insane and almost criminal wastage at some levels, when it comes to how the MOD are ripped off by those who supply equipment. That needs a full and thorough investigation.
So what's my tax quids been going on....?
You’ve made plenty from Little Mix man stop whingeing!
Good news: the Hurricane, Spitfire, Bristol Beaufigher were designed in the 30s.
How we got this bad since a 2013 warning no idea. In regards to 5 years being ready for direct conflict I don’t reckon we have that long.
Well historically, Britain has relied heavily on it's navy for defense.
What an embarrassment
Between 1923 and 1935 Britain was spending about 2.5% of GDP on defence. In 1936 it started to rearm, and in 1938 it was spending 3.8% of GDP on defence. At the time of Munich, Britain could deploy two divisions to Europe. The Germans had 100 divisions and they invaded France in 1940 with over 140 divisions. Britain deployed 13 divisions to France in 1940. Britain could never compete with the Germans on land and instead focused its spending on the RAF and navy. The UK became impossible to invade. The first Hurricanes were delivered in 1937 and the first Spitfires arrived in August 1938. Fighting a land war anywhere is probably beyond us now. We can't invade China or Russia. We probably need to double the size of the navy and airforce and should be able to protect the sea lanes.
It started after the wall came down
The scale of the UK economy, a midsize European country, puts limits on our military spending ambitions. The carrier program is an example of over the top folly. A well equipped armed forces of a size thats sustainable.
HS2 doesn’t help trying to find extra funds , useless over spent project where money could of been invested elsewhere.
They're not lying, getting spares for our tanks is a pain in the ass.
Too many defence reviews. Started back in the 90’s when I joined up and continued throughout my 22 years. Cut after cut after cut. Now HM Armed Forces are a shadow of their former selves. So often the goodwill of the personnel is the only reason things actually get done.
What about looking after the good people who volunteer for service!? Cleaning up the barracks at most bases would be a place to start..... fixing electricity and plumbing .... so the quality of life for poorly paid soldiers is improved. Improve pay and benefits, to keep experienced staff in place for a career, as well as increase the drive for more people to volunteer.
Alas, no. Let's just waste millions - not just waste it... but let those soldiers see it clearly being wasted, day in, day out. That'll motivate the workforce.
Seriously, the MPs and Generals need to have a good walk around the bases and rub shoulders with soldiers - without reprisals for them speaking up about the issues on base, and actually learn what a soldier's life is actually like right now. Maybe then, you won't have problems retaining staff and recruiting more.
The way this official uses the phrase "Hollow Out" is vastly different from the way it was used by the American armed forces. The Americans were describing a situation where the actual manpower, or troop count was drawn down. At one point it went way too far, resulting a "Skeletal" force.
It’s what you spend the extra £5bn on and not waste it as has been done over the past 20 years.
Id hate to be in the military right now
Those past references are starting to bug me out immensely. How are you supposed to move on in the far future when all you do is a 19XX moment?
Ben Wallace, has probably been the only defence minister who has actually not only listened to his advisors but has the military background to appreciate and act on the countries defence requirements.
I cant understand why ben Wallace is not our prime minister he would be outstanding for our defence forces .
Does that mean we can have Bren Guns again?
Look at home before you look abroad!
We should be matching USA's 4% GDP spend on the military in today current climate, making sure we have a functional fighting force, highly equipped, highly trained. We need aeroplanes for the aircraft carriers asap.
Bet none of the new immigrants will be willing to fight
well looks like there will be no pay rise any time soon
There's only a limited pool of resources and most people would rather see that money being spent on schools and hospitals.
Prepare for the worst.
So, if or when, the perverbial hits the fan.
We are well prepared for any kind of conflict.
Never trust politicians.
That because we did not send troops into Ukraine before the invasion we knew six weeks before the invasion that Russia was going to invade. Sendng 30 thousand Nato troops in Putin would not have attacked. You all only have yourself to blame.
that's all well and good. But who the hell is going to try to invade Britain?