General Sir Nick Carter, the chief of the general staff, warns today that Britain risks falling behind potential adversaries in military strength. In particular, he worries that Russia’s military, as eagerly displayed over the past few years in aid of the Assad regime in Syria, already boasts capabilities that Britain would struggle to match.
Despite a £36 billion budget, the Ministry of Defence has commitments for new warships, jets and submarines that it cannot afford at present. This week the government is expected to extract the armed forces from a review of Britain’s national security, so as to give military chiefs more time to make the numbers work. Gavin Williamson, the new defence secretary, is known to have rejected proposals such as slashing army numbers by 11,000, Royal Marine numbers by 2,000, and Royal Air Force numbers by 1,000, as well as reductions in warships and helicopters. With an extra £20 billion required over the next ten years, however, he may not be able to say no for ever.
Writing to The Times a week and a half ago, General Lord Dannatt, a predecessor of Sir Nick, suggested that Mr Williams was engaged in a “vital battle” with Philip Hammond, the chancellor, who had himself been responsible for a “catastrophic reduction” in Britain’s military capability as defence secretary in 2011-14. His immediate successor, General Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, also expressed concerns, speaking of “a disconnect between what we are seeing and what we aspire to”.
The military’s struggle to preserve its finances has had its comic moments, with Mr Williamson, freshly appointed in his role, banning Mr Hammond last month from using RAF planes on official business until the Treasury settled its outstanding bill with the Ministry of Defence. Financial concerns, however, are a proxy for existential ones.
For the past decade and a half, British military challenges have come in the shape of insurgencies, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cyberwarfare is a growing threat. Yet Sir Nick’s primary concerns are with the threat of more conventional national conflict. In particular, he will mention how one or more Russian submarines sent 26 cruise missiles at targets in Syria from 1,500km away. Faced with a similar barrage, Britain’s air defences would be stretched to the limit, at best. There is also, he will say, a disparity in ground forces. British tanks are often from the 1990s and our armoured personnel carriers are sometimes from the 1960s. Against the long- range artillery and drone fire deployed by Russian-backed troops in Ukraine, they would be vulnerable.
Advertisement
The willingness of the head of Britain’s army to speak so bluntly serves to underscore the seriousness of his message. The military’s financial situation would be clarified by the removal of the cost of Trident, Britain’s nuclear deterrent, from MoD balance sheets, a suggestion originally mooted by Liam Fox. At a cost of £31 billion, Trident distorts military funding and spending and could be reclassified as a capital expense. Historically chaotic procurement has left its mark, as have burgeoning costs of major projects, including the construction of Britain’s two new aircraft carriers, at a cost of more than £3 billion each. Last week parliament’s public accounts committee said that building and equipping the carriers had left the MoD “financially exposed”.
Plausibly, money for the military could be taken from Britain’s overseas aid budget, particularly where forces are deployed in roles of overseas intervention or peacekeeping. Arguably, as Britain withdraws from the EU and American commitment to Nato wavers, the importance of this country being able to militarily punch above its weight has never been greater. The lighter our military is allowed to get, the weaker that punch becomes.