US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

Published

3 years ago

January 30, 2023

admin

A senior US general has privately told Defence Secretary Ben Wallace the British Army is no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force, defence sources have revealed.

They said this decline in war-fighting capability – following decades of cuts to save money – needed to be reversed faster than planned in the wake of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“Bottom line… it’s an entire service unable to protect the UK and our allies for a decade,” one of the defence sources said.

The sources said Rishi Sunak risked failing in his role as “wartime prime minister” unless he took urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

This should include increasing the defence budget by at least £3bn a year; halting a plan to shrink the size of the army even further; and easing peacetime procurement rules that obstruct the UK’s ability to buy weapons and ammunition at speed.

“We have a wartime prime minister and a wartime chancellor,” one source said.

“History will look back at the choices they make in the coming weeks as fundamental to whether this government genuinely believes that its primary duty is the defence of the realm or whether that is just a slogan to be given lip service.”

Offering a sense of the scale of the challenge faced by the army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, it is understood that:

The armed forces would run out of ammunition “in a few days” if called upon to fight
The UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring
It would take five to ten years for the army to be able to field a war-fighting division of some 25,000 to 30,000 troops backed by tanks, artillery and helicopters
Some 30% of UK forces on high readiness are reservists who are unable to mobilise within NATO timelines – “so we’d turn up under strength”
The majority of the army’s fleet of armoured vehicles, including tanks, was built between 30 to 60 years ago and full replacements are not due for years

European powers like France and Germany have announced plans to boost defence spending significantly following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year.

Putin ‘at war with the West’

The European Union has even said President Putin is now at war with the West and NATO.

But the UK’s chancellor-turned-prime minister just wants the problem “to go away”, a second source claimed.

Mr Sunak has yet to make any meaningful pledge to expand his defence coffers, instead pursuing a “refresh” of a review of defence policy that is due to be published on 7 March ahead of a spring budget that will signal whether there is any new money for the military.

While the picture is bleak across the military, the army is in a particularly bad place.

Plans exist to modernise the service with fighting vehicles, missiles and upgraded tanks but they were devised before Russia launched its war and the timeline to deliver the transformation is too slow to meet the heightened risk, according to the defence sources.

Such concerns are not just being expressed by individuals inside UK defence circles, with sources saying a high-ranking US general offered a frank assessment of the British Army to Mr Wallace and some other senior officials last autumn.

The general used a term to rank the strength of a country’s military, with tier one regarded as a top-level power such as the United States, Russia, China and France and a status the UK also seeks to hold.

Tier two would describe a more middling power with less fighting capability such as Germany or Italy.

According to the sources, the general, referring to the army, said: “You haven’t got a tier one. It’s barely tier two.”

One of the sources insisted that the US and the rest of NATO understands the UK is planning to rebuild its force.

“It’s now in a better cycle with a lot of new investment over the next ten years”, the source said.

“As long as they don’t screw up the procurement, they’re on track to be a modern army.”

But other sources were less confident about how the UK was being viewed by its allies.

Defence crisis a long time coming

The crisis in defence has been a generation in the making following repeated reductions in the size of the three armed services since the end of the Cold War by successive Conservative, coalition and Labour governments to save money for peacetime priorities.

Compounding the impact of the cuts is a chronic failure by the Ministry of Defence and the army over the past 20 years to procure some of its most needed equipment – such as armoured vehicles and new communication systems – despite spending billions of pounds.

In addition, the need to supply Ukraine with much of the army’s remaining stocks of weapons and ammunition to help the Ukrainian military fight Russia has increased the pressure even further.

The UK is playing a key role in supporting Kyiv, with the prime minister becoming the first leader to promise to send Western tanks – a leadership role he appeared keen to highlight when he took to social media after Germany and the US followed suit.

“Really pleased they’ve joined the UK in sending main battle tanks to Ukraine,” Mr Sunak tweeted last Wednesday.

“We have a window to accelerate efforts to secure a lasting peace for Ukrainians. Let’s keep it up.”

Yet despite this tough talk, Mr Sunak failed to list fixing capability gaps in his own armed forces as being among his top five priorities in his first policy speech as prime minister in early January even as Russia’s war rages on in Europe.

“The PM’s wartime approach is currently to cut the army, hollow it out further by gifting [equipment to Ukraine] and with no plans to replace [the weapons] for five to seven years,” the first defence source said.

In 2020, Boris Johnson, as prime minister, increased defence spending by £16 billion – the biggest uplift since the Cold War, but not enough to plug the gaps.

Since then, rising inflation, foreign exchange rates and the need to accelerate modernisation plans in the wake of Ukraine will mean more cuts without new cash, the sources said.

‘Hollow force’

The chronic erosion has created what defence sources describe as a “hollow force”, with insufficient personnel, not enough money to train and arm those still on the books, out-dated weapons and depleted stockpiles of ammunition and spare parts.

It has long been a concern, but Mr Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has created an added sense of urgency – though seemingly not yet inside Number 10, according to General Sir Richard Barrons, a former senior commander.

“The money needed to fix defence is small when compared to other areas of spending like health, welfare and debt interest. So this is a matter of government choices, not affordability,” he told Sky News.

“Defence can no longer be left at the bottom of the list… Why is this lost on Downing Street and the Treasury, but not in Paris or Berlin?”

Mr Sunak has so far resisted calls to follow his predecessor, Liz Truss, to lift defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 up from just over 2% at present.

NATO requires all allies to spend at least 2% of national income on defence – a minimum baseline that France and Germany have previously failed to meet but have pledged to achieve.

Army smallest since Napoleonic times

At just 76,000 strong, the British army is less than half the size it was back in 1990 and the smallest it has been since Napoleonic times.

The force is due to shrink even further to 73,000 under current plans that will be implemented unless new money is found.

Retired generals, admirals and air chief marshals have been sounding the alarm for years, finding their voices typically after choosing to stay quiet while in uniform.

But unusually, even serving officials have started to speak more bluntly in public about their depleted capabilities – a clear signal of serious concern within the Ministry of Defence’s main building and at the headquarters of the three services as well as strategic command.

‘Known capability risks’

Appearing before a committee of MPs earlier this month, Lieutenant General Sharon Nesmith, deputy chief of the general staff, spoke about the army’s plans to modernise, which were set out in 2021 as part of a body of work that was done in line with the government’s integrated review.

It envisaged delivering a war-fighting division, supported by new armoured vehicles and long-range missiles to be created by 2030 – leaving an interim gap.

“There were known capability risks,” Lt Gen Nesmith said in her evidence to MPs on the defence select committee.

“I think that, through today’s lens of war in Ukraine, on land, some of those decisions feel very uncomfortable.”

A government spokesperson said: “The prime minister is clear that we have to do everything necessary to protect our people, which is why the UK has the largest defence budget in Europe and we made the biggest investment in the UK defence industry since the Cold War in 2020.

“We are ensuring our armed forces have the equipment and capability they need to meet the threats of tomorrow, including through a fully-funded £242bn 10-year equipment plan.”

Regrowing military capability – something most European nations are also having to do – is difficult, particularly because of the need to balance support to the UK’s own defence industry and jobs against securing bulk purchases at a competitive price.

A separate defence source said: “The defence secretary has made clear for years now, about the need to modernise our army to ensure it keeps pace with our allies.

“That’s why at the spending review in 2020 he achieved an extra £16bn… Reinvesting, learning lessons from Ukraine and growing industrial skills takes time.

“We are on track to start to see new tanks, personnel carriers and air defence systems by the year after next. Over the next few years, Britain will rightly regain its place as one of the leading land forces in Europe.”

UK

Britain is buying new air defence missile systems – but can they protect us?

Published

4 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

Britain is buying new air defence missile systems - but can they protect us?

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has announced it will buy £118m worth of air defence missile systems for the British Army.

But will this new purchase protect an increasingly vulnerable UK from attack, and why now?

For more than 50 years, the British Army relied on the Rapier air defence missile system to protect deployed forces.

In 2021, that system was replaced by Sky Sabre.

The new system is mobile, ground-based, and designed to counter various aerial threats, including fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, drones, and guided munitions.

It’s known for its speed, accuracy, and ability to integrate with other military assets, including those of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force (and NATO).

What is the Land Ceptor missile, and why do we need more of them?

Sky Sabre includes radar, command, and control capability and – most importantly – a missile to intercept incoming threats.

The Land Ceptor missile weighs around 100kg, has a 10kg warhead, and can intercept threats out to around 15 miles (25km), making it around three times more effective than the Rapier system it replaced.

When the MoD made the decision to replace the Rapier system, the global threat environment was very different to that experienced today.

Since the end of the Cold War, the UK has been involved in expeditionary warfare – wars of choice – and generally against less capable adversaries.

So, although the Land Ceptor missile is very capable, defence planning assumptions (DPAs) were that they would not need to be used in a serious way, commensurate with the threat.

However, as the Russian invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated (as has the series of Iranian attacks on Israel), significantly larger stockpiles are required against a more capable enemy.

Is the UK vulnerable to missile attack?

In short, yes. Although the Land Ceptor missile does provide an excellent point-defence capability, it is not an effective counter to ballistic or hypersonic missiles – the Sea Viper mounted on Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyers using the Aster 30 missile has that capability.

In the Cold War, the UK had Bloodhound missiles deployed around the UK to provide a missile defence capability, but as the perceived risks to the UK abated following the collapse of the Soviet Union, UK missile defence fell down the priorities for the MoD.

Although the radar based at RAF Fylingdales forms part of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS), and can detect incoming threats, the UK no longer has an effective interceptor to protect critical national infrastructure.

Instead, the UK relies on the layered defences of European allies to act as a deterrence against attack.

In the near term, this timely order for Land Ceptor missiles doubles the British Army’s tactical capability.

However, as the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have demonstrated, ballistic (and increasingly hypersonic) missiles are being produced in increasing quantity – and quality.

Without significant (and rapid) investment, this critical gap in national military capability leaves the UK vulnerable to attack.

UK

New dinosaur named after record-breaking yachtswoman

Published

4 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

New dinosaur named after record-breaking yachtswoman

A newly-discovered dinosaur with an “eye-catching sail” along its back and tail is to be named after record-breaking yachtswoman Dame Ellen MacArthur.

Istiorachis macaruthurae was identified and named by Jeremy Lockwood, a PhD student at the University of Portsmouth and the Natural History Museum.

Istiorachis means “sail spine” and macaruthurae is taken from the surname of Dame Ellen, who became famous for setting a record for the fastest solo non-stop round-the-world voyage in 2005.

Dame Ellen is from the Isle of Wight, where the creature’s fossils were found.

Before Dr Lockwood analysed them, the fossils, which date back 125 million years, were thought to be from one of the two known iguanodontian dinosaur species from the island.

“But this one had particularly long neural spines, which was very unusual,” he said.

Writing in the scientific journal Papers in Palaeontology, Dr Lockwood said his study showed the dino would have probably had a pronounced sail-like structure along its back.

The exact purpose of such features “has long been debated, with theories ranging from body heat regulation to fat storage”.

In this case, researchers think it was most likely to be for “visual signalling, possibly as part of a sexual display”.

For the study, the researchers compared the fossilised bones with a database of similar dinosaur backbones which allowed them to see how these sail-like formations had evolved.

Dr Lockwood said his team showed Istiorachis’s spines “weren’t just tall, they were more exaggerated than is usual in Iguanodon-like dinosaurs, which is exactly the kind of trait you’d expect to evolve through sexual selection”.

Professor Susannah Maidment, of the Natural History Museum, said: “Jeremy’s careful study of fossils that have been in museum collections for several years has brought to life the iguandontian dinosaurs of the Isle of Wight.

“His work highlights the importance of collections like those at [Isle Of Wight museum] Dinosaur Isle, where fossil specimens are preserved in perpetuity and can be studied and revised in the light of new data and new ideas about evolution.

“Over the past five years, Jeremy has single-handedly quadrupled the known diversity of the smaller iguanodontians on the Isle of Wight, and Istiorachis demonstrates we still have much to learn about Early Cretaceous ecosystems in the UK.”

UK

Shoreham air crash: Families mark 10 years since one of UK’s worst airshow disasters

Published

7 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

Shoreham air crash: Families mark 10 years since one of UK's worst airshow disasters

On the 10th anniversary of the Shoreham air disaster, the families of some of those killed have criticised the regulator for what they describe as a “shocking” ongoing attitude towards safety.

On 22 August 2015, a vintage fighter jet plummeted out of the sky and crashed into one of the busiest roads in Sussex, killing 11 men.

Most of them weren’t even watching the aerobatic display overhead when they were engulfed in a fireball that swept down the dual carriageway.

Jacob Schilt, 23, and his friend Matthew Grimstone, also 23, were driving to play in a match for their football team, Worthing United FC.

Both sets of parents are deeply angry that their beloved sons have lost their lives in this way.

“It obviously changed our lives forever, and it’s a huge reminder every 22nd of August, because it’s such a public anniversary. It’s destroyed our lives really,” his mum, Caroline Shilt, said.

“It was catastrophic for all of us,” Jacob’s father, Bob, added.

‘They had no protection’

Sue and Phil Grimstone argue that the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has not been held accountable for allowing the airshow to take place where it did.

“At Shoreham, the permission given by the CAA did not allow displaying aircraft to perform over paying spectators or their parked cars,” they said.

“But aircraft were permitted to fly aerobatics directly over the A27, which was in the display area, a known busy road.

“This was about ignoring the safety of people travelling on a major road in favour of having an air show. They had no protection.”

A series of catastrophic errors

The crash happened while the experienced pilot, Andy Hill, a former RAF instructor, was attempting to fly a loop in a 1950s Hawker Hunter jet.

But he made a series of catastrophic errors. His speed as the plane pitched up into the manoeuvre was far too slow, and therefore, he failed to get enough height to be able to pull out of the dive safely. The jet needed to be at least 1,500ft higher.

Mr Hill survived the crash but says he does not remember what happened, and a jury at the Old Bailey found him not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter in 2019.

When the inquest finally concluded in 2022, the coroner ruled the men had been unlawfully killed because of a series of “gross errors” committed by the pilot.

The rules around air shows have been tightened up since the crash, with stricter risk assessments, minimum height requirements, crowd protection distances, and checks on pilots.

But Jacob and Matt’s families believe the CAA still isn’t doing enough to protect people using roads near airshows, or other bystanders not attending the events themselves.

The families recently raised concerns about the Duxford airshow in a meeting with the CAA.

While aircraft are no longer allowed to fly aerobatics over the M11, they do so nearby – and can fly over the road at 200ft to reconfigure and return. If the M11 has queuing traffic in the area, the display must be stopped or curtailed.

The Grimstones believe this demonstrates accepting “an element of risk” and are frustrated that the CAA only commissioned an independent review looking at congested roads and third-party protection earlier this year.

“We feel the CAA are still dragging their feet when it comes to the safety of third parties on major roads directly near an air show,” they said.

The family have complained about the CAA to the parliamentary ombudsman.

‘There are still question marks’

Some experts also believe the CAA has questions to answer about a previous incident involving Mr Hill, after organisers of the 2014 Southport Airshow brought his display to an emergency stop because he had flown too close to the crowd, and beneath the minimum height for his display.

In its investigation into the Shoreham disaster, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) later found that while the CAA inspector present had an informal discussion with the pilot, no further action was taken, and the incident was not reported to the AAIB.

Retired pilot Steve Colman has spent many years looking into what happened at Shoreham, and he believes the CAA failed to fulfil their statutory obligation to fully investigate and report the incident at Southport.

“You have to ask the question – if the Southport incident had been investigated, then was Shoreham more likely or less likely to have occurred?” he said. “I think there can only be one answer – it’s less likely to have occurred.”

Tim Loughton, who was the MP for Shoreham at the time, believes a balance must be struck.

“We don’t want to regulate these events out of existence completely. A lot of the smaller air shows no longer happened because they couldn’t comply with the new regulations […], but certainly there are still question marks over the way the CAA conducted and continues to conduct itself. I would welcome more parliamentary scrutiny.”

Rob Bishton, chief executive at the CAA, said: “Our thoughts remain with the families and friends of those affected by the Shoreham Airshow crash.

“Following the crash, several investigations and safety reviews were carried out to help prevent similar incidents in the future. This included an immediate review of airshow safety and a full investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. All recommendations and safety improvements from these reviews were fully implemented.

“Airshows continue to be subject to rigorous oversight to ensure the highest possible safety standards are maintained.

“At a previous airshow in 2014 the pilot involved in the Shoreham accident was instructed to abort a display by the show’s flying director. This incident was investigated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and regulatory action was taken.”

Mr Bishton added: “As part of the work to review the safety oversight of airshows following the tragic Shoreham crash, the actions taken by the regulator following such a stop call were enhanced.”

But the families of those killed still believe much more could be done.