...better leaders will have fix it, at greater cost, later...
Barely a month after a rash of resignations from Labour’s defense cadre, we’re starting to see what this is about.
The details only confirm what we have all seen coming: those given stewardship of the defense of the United Kingdom do not think it worth defending, nor do they think she should have the ability to effectively do her fair share in the collective defense with her allies. They most unquestionably do not believe that any future government of the United Kingdom, should the nation exist in its present form beyond the near future, should have the ability to project national will to any meaningful degree, anywhere.
The decline of her most critical power, her sea power—already at a nadir unseen in centuries—is in its terminal phase.
As the nation who relied on her the most as its most reliable and capable ally, the United States needs to see this for what it is. At best, poor vision by leaders beset by error and confused by advisors more versed in military fiction than military practice: at worst intentional destruction by a governing elite who hates their own nation as much as they seem to hate their own subjects.
Behold, another seal is broken.
The UK will replace a fleet of big, expensive destroyers with smaller, budget warships under an investment plan that seeks to rearm the military for less cash than officers say they need.
The move - described by one source as a “pragmatic solution” to funding constraints - will form part of the long-delayed defence investment plan, which the government is finally expected to unveil on Tuesday.
We will wait for confirming details with the official release, but it is so bad that I have confidence in what has leaked out.
However, it will leave the Royal Navy without a like-for-like successor for its Type 45 destroyer. The £1bn warship is currently the only piece of British kit that can intercept ballistic missiles.
Dan Jarvis, the defence secretary, is thought to have secured up to £1.5bn in additional money for the armed forces on top of some £13.5bn already fought for by John Healey, his predecessor.
Yet the amount remains far short of the tens of billions of pounds of extra funding that military insiders say would be required to fix the UK’s hollowed-out defences in time for a potential war with Russia by 2030 - a timeline that Sir Keir Starmer has used.
This government has no intent to go to war. The Labour government is doing what it can to make sure no other government will be able to either.
…the Ministry of Defence that the navy’s six Type 45 destroyers will eventually be replaced by what the department is calling a “common combat vessel”.
There is not yet a contract for this ship - the model does not even have a name - but it will be a crewed frigate, which is smaller than a destroyer, and could well be an iteration of the new Type 31 variant that is already being built.
The “common combat vessel” will be focused on defending against incoming missiles and drones, which is a core task of a destroyer, rather than anti-submarine warfare, which is a key role of an ordinary frigate.
The proposed new warship is also expected to operate alongside a suite of uncrewed air, sea and sub-surface drones, including missile barges to provide a layered air defence.
It means, in theory, this “hybrid” capability - which is apparently due to enter into service from the early 2030s, though these sorts of procurements have a sorry history of running late - should be able to perform the same air defence role as a Type 45, but at half the price, according to the defence source.
We’ve all seen this before. No one believes that by the early 2030’s, less than a decade from now, the British will be able to design, built, and bring to Full Operational Capability what we have been described so far.
No. Serious. Person.
This is worse than snake oil—this is a bold-faced lie.
You will find few stronger advocates for Robotic Automated Systems (RAS) than me…but I also am clear-eyed about technology risk, programmatic risk, and the track record of compounding both with new technology on an unrealistic timeline. I am also firm in my conviction and consistent in my observations that through mid-century, RAS will be useful parts of any defense system, but they will not have resilience, robustness, code, nor more importantly—ROE—to be more than that.
“Our Royal Navy is a formidable force, operating to protect our nation and our allies in the Atlantic and beyond,” Mr Jarvis said in a statement.
“These common combat vessels will provide our dedicated sailors with hybrid ships that are designed and built for the increasing threats we face.”
The announcement spells the end of naval aspirations to acquire a next-generation destroyer, called the Type 83, which would have been even more costly than the Type 45.
Mr. Jarvis — is there something in Wales that tickles your fancy?
If you want candor from the mother country, you can find it.
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the previous chief of the defence staff, was scathing about how the armed forces had been allowed to whither under successive governments.
In a sign of this decline, the UK is second from the bottom of a table that ranks which country is meeting its NATO commitments, propped up by Iceland, which does not have a military.
“Hardly ‘leading in Europe’,” Sir Tony wrote in an article for The Times. “More ‘NATO 31st’ than ‘NATO First’. Awkward.”
I think John Foreman put it well earlier this AM;
…without a proven, deployable air defence capability vs emerging hyper fast and ballistic missiles the RN won't meet its commitments to the UK and oversea territories, be able to escort a UK task group, nor meet its NATO or OOA responsibilities.
There's no operational analysis for any of this.
Watching the broad-spectrum collapse of the United Kingdom—ranging from free speech and jury trials to equal protection under the law, quality of life, and national defense—is really sad to see. Self-inflicted by the governing elite that was given everything, but decided future generations did not deserve it.
There is a lot of ruin in a nation. There can always be a self-correction, but the farther you get from where you should be, the harder and more painful it will be to get back.
As for the rest of us—and by “us” I mean the 87% of my subscribers who are in the USA—what are we to do?
Remember what I have been writing about for over two decades when it comes to problems in national defense. Look to the United Kingdom. If we do not take positive action, we are just a decade behind them.
That was true, but the Mother Country has drifted so far, I don’t know if that connection is as strong as it once was. Perhaps now it is only as useful as looking to Italy or other more stable (amazing thing to say) medium powers. I really don’t know. I would say Japan or Poland might be good to look at, but they are growing powers, not mature powers, and only Japan is as the U.S. and UK are, a maritime and aerospace power. Helpful, perhaps…but the UK? I think she has drifted too far.
After an extended sigh, that is probably best. We need to look for other more capable partners as we approach mid-century. Help the Mother Country as we can and help her return to where she should be, but leave assumptions of the past behind. Build newer partnerships with friends on a firmer footing and build our own power to compensate.
Pray for peace.
😓England is lost.