Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

Well, I think the Canadian should be a cautionary tale.  For a couple of decades, the justification was that although our spending was relatively low, we had very good capability. But the problem is there's a lot of spending that is necessary on things that are not directly linked to the actual tools of war that are necessary for maintaining the capability to fighter war

Things that look like lien items in any budget, HR costs, public plant and planning, etc., etc. etc.

The military is one of those things where a carve out is needed in the budget because without it other or immediate political pressures will always push it to the sideline

[Valmy]

On frigates and destroyers vs drones, my thinking is that any time there's a "this new technology renders all the old stuff completely obsolete" argument, it's mostly hype. My understanding is that tanks and APCs are still valuable in the war between Russia and Ukraine, for example, in spite of (and probably more likely - in conjunction with) the prevalence of drone warfare. Similarly, infantry is still super necessary.

I expect what really matters is doctrine, how well to integrate the classic capabilities with the new ones.

The whole "it's the age of drones! We don't need warships anymore!" sounds like a superficial excuse to, once more, not invest in critical capabilities.

It is the age of drones. You need drones. You also need tons of artillery shells and other ordinance. The Euros already seem ok at building frigates and tanks and training infantry.

But having sufficient ordinance and things like drones strike me as more problematic.

[crazy canuck]

I'm pretty sure we would all agree that the Ukrainians have become the subject matter experts on drone warfare and so if we look to what they are developing internally, that probably will give us a clue as to whether we have entered an age where drones are the answer to the exclusion of everything else.

As you would expect the answer is no, drones are just part of the arsenal that the Ukrainians are developing.

Here is a very high-level summary of the latest weapon systems approved by the Ukrainian ministry of defence for the development and procurement of the Ukrainian arms industry

Among the systems approved this year are more than 300 new unmanned aerial systems, 188 types of ammunition, 128 communications systems, over 60 electronic warfare and electronic intelligence systems, 50 new ground robotic platforms, and nearly 50 armored vehicles and specialized armored transport systems

[Tonitrus]

On frigates and destroyers vs drones, my thinking is that any time there's a "this new technology renders all the old stuff completely obsolete" argument, it's mostly hype. My understanding is that tanks and APCs are still valuable in the war between Russia and Ukraine, for example, in spite of (and probably more likely - in conjunction with) the prevalence of drone warfare. Similarly, infantry is still super necessary.

I expect what really matters is doctrine, how well to integrate the classic capabilities with the new ones.

The whole "it's the age of drones! We don't need warships anymore!" sounds like a superficial excuse to, once more, not invest in critical capabilities.

Recently, my understanding is different...most of the reporting I've seen lately on the conflict is that tanks/APCs are almost never used in front line areas because they are very quickly plinked by drones.

It may be that the conflict has run long that by now replacements haven't kept up so they'd be rare anyway...but aside from a few rare cases, it seemw like one rarely hears about their use anymore.  Certainly not widespread. 

[Valmy]

Just to repeat I am not saying that drones should replace everything else. What I actually said was that procurement should be based on the lessons from that conflict.

Also drones and other unsexy things like artillery ordinance shouldn't be ignored to the benefit of more sexy big shiny weapon systems. Which seems a far more likely mistake western countries will make than going all in on drone warfare.

[crazy canuck]

On frigates and destroyers vs drones, my thinking is that any time there's a "this new technology renders all the old stuff completely obsolete" argument, it's mostly hype. My understanding is that tanks and APCs are still valuable in the war between Russia and Ukraine, for example, in spite of (and probably more likely - in conjunction with) the prevalence of drone warfare. Similarly, infantry is still super necessary.

I expect what really matters is doctrine, how well to integrate the classic capabilities with the new ones.

The whole "it's the age of drones! We don't need warships anymore!" sounds like a superficial excuse to, once more, not invest in critical capabilities.

Recently, my understanding is different...most of the reporting I've seen lately on the conflict is that tanks/APCs are almost never used in front line areas because they are very quickly plinked by drones.

It may be that the conflict has run long that by now replacements haven't kept up so they'd be rare anyway...but aside from a few rare cases, it seemw like one rarely hears about their use anymore.  Certainly not widespread.

The Ukrainians have developed an APC designed to defeat the Russian drone threat.

Canada has just agreed to provide Ukraine with more mind resistant vehicles.

A lot of the stories that were hearing are certainly about the effectiveness of Ukrainian drone strikes, but that does not mean that vehicles are not being used by the Ukrainians.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

They're being used, vehicles that is, as they've recently lost a few that were mapped. Denys mentioned them in one of his his YouTube videos today

[Jacob]

It is the age of drones. You need drones. You also need tons of artillery shells and other ordinance. The Euros already seem ok at building frigates and tanks and training infantry.

But having sufficient ordinance and things like drones strike me as more problematic.

Of course, and I'm pretty sure European countries are working on that. I know the Danish government is looking for Skyfall - a Ukrainian producer of drones - to start manufacturing in Denmark. The exact timing depends on the outcome on final due diligence, but it's a pretty advanced conversation. Similarly, a couple of weeks ago Skyfall and Airbus announced a strategic innovation partnership (or some such).

So I think the Euros are doing that work.

The issue with Britain is that they seem not so good at building frigates right now, but could probably get back into the game with a bit of effort. More to the point, however, it seems that elements within Britain are using theories about the supremacy of drones as a reason to not put in that bit of effort.

[Tonitrus]

They're being used, vehicles that is, as they've recently lost a few that were mapped. Denys mentioned them in one of his his YouTube videos today

I don't doubt they're being used, that is not what I said.  They're not being used in mass or in primary roles in major offensive operations...mostly in isolated or support roles.

And as you said...lost. 

Their use in combat operations, for their primary intended use, appears to have been greatly diminished.

[crazy canuck]

They're being used, vehicles that is, as they've recently lost a few that were mapped. Denys mentioned them in one of his his YouTube videos today

I don't doubt they're being used, that is not what I said.  They're not being used in mass or in primary roles in major offensive operations...mostly in isolated or support roles.

And as you said...lost. 

No, actually you said they were almost never used.

And I'm not even sure it's accurate to say that vehicles are not being used in a primary way either.

[Sheilbh]

I think it's worth being careful when we talk about the "Euros". There is significant increases in defence spending - 90% of it is from Germany and Poland. That's really important, but the other bigger countries in Europe (the UK, France, Italy and Spain) are not keeping pace. The remainder tend to be smaller countries (Nordics and Baltics especially) but again other smaller countries are also not investing.

As I say that's really important and positive - however there is a regional and strategic focus there around North-East Europe and the Baltic. That is the primary Russian threat which is good - but I don't think it's the only area of threat from Russia or more broadly for Europe. This is why I'm emphasising Britain's traditional role within NATO/European security - because if we're not doing it, it's not clear that someone else is or can (at least not in the short-term) and I think this matters more as it's about making sure our forces are able to in effect replace the full-spectrum forces of the US. As I say not just Britain - France also had to cancel its Atlantic deployment to move to the Eastern Med with the Iran war because it can't do both at once, Italy has a role to play in the Med, both have roles to play in the Eastern Med and North Africa, Romania and Bulgaria have important roles in South-Eastern Europe (especially with Romania formally opening consideration of unification with Moldova).

Underlining this, generally (Spain is an exception) is basically fiscal policy. The European Union has a solution for that if they're willing to unlock common debt for a common interest. That solution isn't available for the UK - but it absolutely is for Spain, Italy, France, South-Eastern Europe if there's political willingness to take the leap.

On the drone point - it is a little more complicated than that. With the frigates we've been flogging a very old fleet for a very, very long time. The real problem here is actually decisions made 15 years ago when shipbuilding programs were repeatedly scaled down by Gordon Brown and George Osborne because they want peace dividend for other fiscal priorities and within the MoD bunfight the navy repeatedly lost because we had troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And also even when they did make a commitment to the Navy (such as the carriers) other priorities were delayed to spread the impact of spending over many years - as the recently resigned Defence Secretary, John Healey, put it "our adversaries do not act in line with Treasury timetables".

So the initial plan was 12 destroyers and an order of frigates, it was halved over successive budgets by Brown and Osborne. Those ships will start to be launched in 2028 through to 2035. At the same time our current frigate is down to about 5 operational ships at any given time (and they spend a lot of time in drydock). There will be a period when we are either going to have to extend them beyond their operational life or not have any frigates in the fleet. This is further challenged because we've worked on this program with the Norwegians and they will be buying some of these ships (useful for the Treasury) but that may extend the gap. This goes to my point of redundancy not efficiency being increasingly important - a government with different priorities (or if fiscal concerns weren't an issue) could invest to increase capacity. I would add the 8-10 year build time for these ships is why I'm also a little dubious on "Europe is spending now so it'll be fine" - it's going to be a concerted, long-term effort and I've mentioned before but according to the European defence companies they're getting lots of orders and money, but they're not getting long-term contracts that would justify expanding capacity. And we're in a world where Russia has spent a couple of decades spending on the Arctic fleet, China's fleet is on course to increase by 70% in the last ten years - I think naval investment (perhaps uniquely) is a multi-year, decade long project (that produces assets that can be used for decades).

The current fight is around spending the MoD says they need to meet existing operational requirements and build up the defence industry to meet current needs. There were lots of bits including I think 8 new anti-air focused destroyers (and drone platforms). They are not going to be built. Instead we'll be looking at a far cheaper unmanned new type of ship to replace that operational role.

I'd also add that the Navy - like all of the forces - is in a recruitment and retention crisis. So actually a lot of defence bods said the priority needed to be people first of improving recruitment and keeping good people. On that front I think the cuts to the cadet program (second round of cuts to the cadet program - which must be a rounding error in terms of government spending - under this government, both overwhelmingly affecting state schools suggests a degree of ideological discomfort) and housing renovation for personnel and their families (bad housing is the number one reason people give for leaving) may be as damaging. It is also the opposite of what defence specialists have suggested - and if the Treasury are responsible for the overall number of the program it may be the MoD who picked shiny new, unmanned drones, over trying to recruit and keep good people.

I agree with Mark Urban - I think we are at a Suez/or withdrawing East of Suez moment. There are decades of decisions and peace dividend taking behind this. But I think we are at a point when - perhaps accidentally or thoughtlessly - the British government is deciding that it is not willing to make the choice necessary to pay for Britain as a defence power within Europe/playing a role in European defence.