Category Archives: Military

Britain, Defence, Government, Military, Politics, Society

Strategic Defence Review: Falls far short of being “war ready”

DEFENCE

THE UK GOVERNMENT has unveiled its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review (SDR) with great fanfare. Headed by former NATO chief George Robertson, it has been presented as a “root and branch review” of our military policy, and points the way to “a new era for defence”.

How pitiful then that the announcement has been overshadowed by the Defence Secretary quibbling over how much the Government is willing to spend. Just days ago, John Healey declared there was “no doubt” the UK would hit its target of spending 3 per cent of GDP (from the current 2.3 per cent) on defence by 2034, and promised a “certain decade of rising defence spending”. But that commitment now seems less than cast iron, as Healey has retreated to the language of “aims” and “ambitions” when referring to the target.

If he didn’t know how much he’s spending immediately prior to the SDR then what confidence can we have in any of his and Starmer’s promises? It betrays a disarray at the heart of defence, for the Defence Secretary’s main job is to get the money right.

That aside, some of the review’s proposals that have been in the public domain for a while are welcome – in particular, the revelation that the Government will build six new munitions factories, given that our industrial capacity has been depleted for decades.

Supplying arms to Ukraine since 2022 has severely diminished our stocks. Expanding home-grown munitions manufacturing will allow us to replenish our stores and reduce our reliance on the US and Germany. And the jobs it will create, including hundreds of highly skilled roles, can only be a good thing.

The Government’s decision to build up to 12 attack submarines as part of the AUKUS programme run by Australia, the UK and US will also create thousands of jobs. Questions remain, however, on just how many of these submarines will fall under the command of the Royal Navy or go to the Royal Australian Navy. Any expansion of our conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet must also be matched by investment in recruiting and retraining personnel, as the service desperately struggles to man its fleet as it is.

It also appears that the Government is finally taking seriously the possibility of the UK coming under ballistic missile attack, with the review pledging to introduce new defence “shields”. While an Israel-style Iron Dome system to intercept long-range aerial attacks sounds justified, it would be prohibitively expensive to envelop the whole of the British Isles. Nonetheless we do need much more than the nothing we have today – namely, missile defences over key strategic targets like government buildings, airfields, and manufacturing hubs.

Yet, the announcement of 7,000 new British-built “missiles” is concerning if that number also includes attack drones, as Healey has indicated. If actual missiles turn out to be a small proportion of this total, such a move will hardly jangle nerves in Moscow or Beijing. The Russians continue to launch hundreds of drones and missiles at Ukraine most nights and China has over 10,000 missiles ready to fire.

And when it comes to drones, what type are we investing in? The Houthi rebels in Yemen have made light work of taking out the US’s £22million MQ-9 Reaper drones, downing six of them in the last three months.

We need to expand and diversify our stocks, training soldiers to operate lightweight, cheap drones, in particular, which have proved so nimble and deadly above the steppes of Ukraine.

So, while there is much to welcome and applaud in this review, there is also much more to be done. Elsewhere, reports have emerged that the Government is in highly sensitive talks to buy F35A fighter jets, which can carry nuclear bombs.

This would broaden our nuclear deterrent beyond our four Vanguard-class submarines but would also tie us to yet more US technology. The warplane can use only the B61-12 bomb – stocks of which are strictly controlled by the Pentagon.

Nor would the jet, which needs a longer runway to take off, be compatible with the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers – so the flight decks of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will remain embarrassingly bare. And we are still shamefully unable to train our own pilots. The current Hawk T2 training aircraft is so unreliable that the RAF is sending new pilots overseas to earn their wings. A replacement is urgently needed.

On the ground, our armoured personnel carriers lack anti-tank systems, making them little more than battlefield taxis. The troops they carry will also be dangerously exposed on any future frontline because they have virtually no air cover, due to so few aircraft, pilots and drones.

The latest hi-tech kit and equipment is always welcome but it’s useless without the personnel to put it to use in action. One critical thing the Ukraine war has taught us is that troop numbers are important – and we seriously need more recruits in every branch of the Armed Forces.

Healey is expected to set a long-term target for increasing the size of the Army, but some suspect that increase will largely come from a mooted “Home Guard” force, which will be established to protect domestic infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants.

If the review fails to commit us to expand the Army to at least 100,000 full-time soldiers (up from just 73,000), we will remain incapable of prosecuting a land offensive in eastern Europe were Russia to invade a NATO ally, at a time when the US is retreating from the European theatre.

Given the current budgetary constraints, it is unlikely the SDR will get the UK anywhere close to being “war ready”. The financial resources just aren’t available.

Standard
Britain, China, Defence, Government, Military, National Security, Politics, United Nations, United States

Chagos deal risks the UK’s nuclear deterrent

CHAGOS ISLANDS

BRITAIN’S nuclear deterrent would be at risk from Chinese interference if the Prime Minister capitulates over the Chagos Islands.

A covert satellite system used to direct British and US nuclear missiles would be compromised if Keir Starmer signs off a deal with China-friendly Mauritius, it is feared.

The UK is currently locked in negotiations, led by Attorney General Lord Hermer and National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, over handing over the strategically important islands in the Indian Ocean following a UN ruling.

The archipelago, controlled by the UK for more than two centuries, is home to the joint UK-US Diego Garcia military base. Britain is set to pay billions to Mauritius to lease the base back for 99 years under the terms of the deal.

But concerns have been raised that the UK’s system for coordinating nuclear missiles relies on connection points on the Diego Garcia base. To function properly, these “nodes” require physical protection and British control of the island’s electromagnetic spectrum.

However, the deal includes a clause saying other countries could also use the spectrum, from which Mauritius could profit.

This could offer Beijing a gateway to jamming the highly classified Automated Digital Network System 3 (ADNS 3), which is shared by the Royal Navy and the US Navy, and, which crucially, is part of the “Nuclear Firing Chain” (NFC). The deal would enhance UK national security, but without it, Britain would lose access to the spectrum. The future operation of the base without a deal would clearly be at risk.

Nonetheless, critics suggest that the government’s arguments are totally fabricated. They say that the islands are far more important than just this and the potential threat to our operations from a no deal is a total fiction from the pen of the Cabinet Office – and, by extension, the human rights law firm, Leigh Day.

Lord Hermer was a go-to barrister for Leigh Day before his appointment as Attorney General last year and he has been accused of a deference to international law over domestic needs.

Leigh Day is currently representing asylum seekers who claim they were trapped on the Chagos Islands after being rescued at sea by the Royal Navy. In 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled that Britain’s continued administration of the islands was unlawful.

Despite the UK ignoring the ruling, it was subsequently ratified by the UN General Assembly, which found the islands rightfully belonged to Mauritius. Sir Ben Wallace, a former defence secretary, said: “Many of the UN judges who made the flawed ruling come from totalitarian states including China.

“Is the PM really going to put their opinions before that of Britain’s security? Diego Garcia is British and must remain so.”

And, MP Tom Tugendhat said that in his former role of security minister, he had seen the advice on the implications of the deal, but the version being presented to the public was “nonsense”.

The settlement could also mean that the Royal Navy could be prevented from entering a buffer zone which Mauritius intends to set up around the islands.

Without any protection from Western navies, there is heightened fear that China could get close enough to the sensitive military facilities.

It is known that ADNS 3 provides assured tactical wide area networking between ships and shore around the world to support full battlespace connectivity.

Britain’s nuclear threat is carried by the Royal Navy’s bomber submarines. Any breakdown of communications or hostile interception of messages which are part of the NFC, or any other breach, would mean Britain losing its nuclear deterrent.

This is a highly technical matter, involving a lot of classified systems, which, according to critics, is being overlooked by government lawyers.

This part of the world is key to China’s expansionist agenda, and any deal with the UK would appear to facilitate that. These systems rely on guarantees around the security of Diego Garcia.

Standard
Britain, Government, Military, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United Nations, United States

Kyiv missile deal edges closer

STORM SHADOW

THE visit by British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and his US counterpart Antony Blinken to battle-ravaged Ukraine in reaffirming their commitment was timely. The pair announced millions more in aid, which was welcomed, but if Ukraine is to stand any chance in defeating Putin, the West must still go further. 

It is now pressing to permit Kyiv to use US and British long-range missiles to pulverise targets deep inside Russian territory. This would allow it to strike air bases which are used to launch devastating and indiscriminate attacks against Ukraine.

The current restrictions on Ukraine using Western long-range missiles – imposed amid fears of provoking the Kremlin – are iniquitous and show timidity.

However, the mood is changing as both the US and UK have accused Russian president Vladimir Putin of escalating the war by seeking missiles from Iran.

Allowing Ukraine to use British Storm Shadow missiles would mark a major step up in capability, as they have a range of more than 155 miles. By contrast, the US-supplied Himars missiles currently being used have a range of just 50 miles. A longer-range capability would enable Ukrainian pilots to remain further from the front lines, as missiles such as Storm Shadow would penetrate much deeper inside Russian territory.

Storm Shadow is a precision-guided cruise missile with a maximum range of up to 200 miles. It has a multi-stage warhead with the initial detonation used to destroy bunkers. The main warhead is controlled by a delayed fuse which destroys whatever is being protected inside a fortified position.

It is “air-launched” and can be released from a safe distance. It travels at a low altitude to avoid radar detection and uses an infra-red seeker to latch on to its target. In May 2023, the UK confirmed it had donated a number of the missiles to Ukraine – but with the proviso that they only be used on Russian targets on Ukrainian sovereign territory.

Ukraine’s president wants Storm Shadow to destroy airfields and command and control centres deep inside Russia. President Zelensky needs to eradicate the threat posed by Russian glide bombs; he wants to strike wherever the aircraft that carry them are based. An accurate, long-range missile arsenal could also directly target Russian supply lines into eastern Ukraine and through territory surrounding Kursk province, which Ukrainian soldiers have successfully penetrated and defended.

However, the view in Washington and, to a lesser extent in London, has been precautionary. Permitting Storm Shadow to be used against targets deep inside Russia could be perceived as escalatory. The US and UK would much prefer to encourage Ukraine and Russia to reach a negotiated settlement. They would prefer, too, for Ukraine to develop its own long-range missiles, thereby avoiding further potential Western fallout with the Kremlin.

Financial reasons are also a significant factor. At £2million each, Storm Shadows aren’t cheap. Supply of them is far from infinite and Ukraine would likely use up the missiles in a short time. Also, they contain highly sensitive technologies which, should the Russians obtain them, could reduce the strategic effectiveness of Storm Shadow in the future.

Mr Blinken has said the United States is adapting to change, including how conditions on the battlefield are changing. With Russia having acquired Iranian ballistic missiles, this must surely be justification for the US to lift its restrictions. Ukraine has the right to defend itself. Nonetheless, complicating matters is that the Biden presidency has only months to run, with Donald Trump making clear he will push for a settlement in days if he wins the November election. Any such deal would likely require Ukraine to concede territory.

So, Kyiv must hold on to as much ground as it can, including areas it occupies in southern Russia. It is now or never for Storm Shadow to make a difference.

Standard