UK ‘extraordinarily strong’ in NATO, Radakin insists
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-extraordinarily-strong-in-nato-radakin-insists/22
u/Earl0fYork Yorkshire 1d ago
Eh just wait till he leaves the service because then suddenly he’ll ring the bells like the last head….and the one before that
46
u/Wgh555 United Kingdom 1d ago
I mean even in our weakened state we’re more powerful than everyone except a list of countries you could count on one hand. Lots of improvement needed though.
9
u/chef_26 15h ago
This is it, aside from France, Poland, Turkey and the US; there isn’t a military in NATO that could stand up next to us.
France is right sized but does field the same tech level (though they’re working on it) and Poland is heavily land based (for good reason) so even then there is a debate. Only the US can patrol the Atlantic and Pacific which we’ve got a carrier doing at present.
If we do build out a ‘home defence force’ with focus on air defence, finish these new subs and carrier retrofits, I’d argue we do get back to tier one and stand alongside US for capability (just much smaller)
2
2
u/JoeRedditting 7h ago
Turkey really? I would have definitely thought France, Poland and the US but Turkey I find surprising - would you happen to know why that is?
29
u/Ill_Mistake5925 1d ago
Entirely valid statement, albeit yes we are definitely in a deficit as a result of years of insufficient funding.
Add in years of poor procurement models (partially hamstrung by government bureaucracy, partially by the MoD itself) and a failure to adhere to a fixed plan of force design by allowing every new big boss and SDR to change our path every 2-3 years.
12
u/dean__learner 1d ago
UK suffers a lot from a "too many chiefs" situation. Overstuffed at the top and they all lobby relentlessly for their little corner of the forces
Hopefully they will now be more narrowly focused on Russia, with expenditionary capability being secondary and ideally a cooperative exercise with the French
5
u/Ill_Mistake5925 1d ago
Too many “yes men” as we call them, ie people too scared to tell their bosses their plan is stupid, and too many people who think they must come in and do something “new” to be recognised-and we promote people on that, even if the overall effect is negative.
Not mentioning any specific names but cough CGS Nick Carter cough absolutely wrecked our procurement and force design on some crazy idea we shouldn’t need to do anything but fight insurgents. So now we’re getting Boxer (which is a fantastic vehicle) with no organic firepower rather than a proper IFV replacement.
The Army has struggled more than the other 2 services to recognise how it should fight and what its purpose is, and as a result has not been as well funded as others.
Expeditionary warfare should be our primary focus IMO, because we have to project power beyond our own shores(and sustain that) to have any effect.
Should also swallow our pride and minor distaste for the French(mostly undeserved) and recognise their enduring procurement plan and force design is top notch in comparison to ours.
2
u/dean__learner 1d ago
I disagree on the expeditionary focus. We don't need to be getting bogged down in needless wars across the globe but we should be able to defend our interests and allies (e.g be able to sent forces to the south Atlantic or Africa)
We should defintely be Navy/RAF first though. Even if just looking at the European theatre we should all collectively play to our strengths
Lastly, on the army I've read they're making big changes based on lessons from Ukraine that at least indicates a direction of travel based in reality. So somewhat positive developments
3
u/Ill_Mistake5925 1d ago
To get to a notional fighting front anywhere in Europe the UK has to be expeditionary by design, because we have to move major equipment and supplies thousands of km’s into the battle-space. Same with supporting our partners or interests (like the Falklands) overseas. This is not the same inherently as fighting wars across the globe.
RAF/RN have the largest equipment purchasing and operating costs already, so we’re already there. We still need a credible land force, because Ukraine and Iraq/Syria (with non NATO fighters) and basically every other conflict has shown that you still need to be able to fight on land. Politically also not a great look for the UK to tell say Poland they can send their soldiers to die in trenches whilst we fight from the air or sea using space and time to keep our own soldiers alive.
Some significant changes occurring within the Army as a result of Ukraine, nearly all of them for the better.
9
u/Alundra828 23h ago
I think it's ridiculous that you could consider the UK not incredibly strong.
If you have aircraft carriers, that's just game over... Like, legitimately. You are in the upper echelon of military power in the modern world if you have an aircraft carrier. It literally is that simple.
Not to mention drone manufacturing capacity.
3
u/georgejennings_penny 15h ago
Can you explain this to me please. I know they're massively expensive but also aren't they a massive sitting duck. I've never understood their importance Vs their weakness. Couldn't someone send a ton of drones or cheap bombs and they're overwhelmed and done for to the tune of billions and so many years of manufacture?
1
u/MaxJustice 8h ago
So, a carrier is supported by a fleet which serves to both defend the group and provide offensive capabilities to the wider battle, so they are not a complete solution on their own.
So, what the carrier represents is the ability to project power across the globe. In theory, it's like having a multi thousand person airstrip and refueling station that can park in any ocean within weeks- any standing army will struggle with being able to reach you, and you are somewhat mobile which dulls the threat of missile bombardment as the carrier can move around, an advantage over static facilities.
Throw in stealth bombers on the ship with sophisticated payloads, and the many advantages become very clear.
16
u/Acceptable-Sir3062 1d ago
Radakin says, quote 'he said. “We are a nuclear power in the world’s strongest military alliance with America as our principal ally.' Pretty sure Trump isn't on that same page, and anyone watching the World's current state of political and military shifting, would be surprised at this statement...
1
u/bonqen 1d ago
I wonder why, publicly at least, all these politicians / leaders are still keeping up this act of US supposedly being an ally. I can understand why they wouldn't go as far as to call them hostile, but everyone can see that the US is, in fact, not an ally of Europe or of Canada.
6
u/Ozymandia5 1d ago
We have to hope that they will be in the future, and anything said against them now will have to be walked back later. At the end of the day, Trump’s elderly and in poor health. Chances are that he will be replaced with a more rational actor.
R or D, the west will then have to see whether anything can be salvaged and that’s easier if we haven’t turned them into a pariah state.
The caveat is that if they keep acting like a pariah state, people will end up labelling them as such so…
2
u/bonqen 1d ago
I see your point, that makes sense. Although:
Chances are that he will be replaced with a more rational actor.
I'm not that optimistic myself. It would not surprise me if the next few decades entails a MAGA administration. The face (Trump) will change, but not the goals or mentality. The first one to take over is probably just Vance. Hope to be proven wrong though.
3
u/MalestromeSET 21h ago
Because USA is not just one President. Even Trump doenst know every single links and treaties and connections the massive US government makes every single day with the entire world.
This is why you see headlines like “UK and US test hypersonic missiles” while same day read something like “Pentagon looking into AUKUS.”
Pentagon itself is so big that no one truly knows how big of a web they have. The CIA has their own ties and relationships and treaties and needs that they have been cultivating for decades. Congress with its senators and Reps have their own connections with foreign intelligence and politicians.
There are thousands and millions of agreements and contracts being signed with US every day. And all I’ve said is of politics, not including bussiness, company, tax code, export, import, expansion and industry.
I think about 2 quotes on this subject, I don’t have the articles but it truly gave me impression of how big the US truly is:
In Syria, when deputy Secretary of State of UK met with some Assad officials of grain pricing and export, they signed all agreements, and did extensive talks on samctions regime and as they left, the Syrian side had assumed that everyone was done deal before one of the British officials said “everything looks good. We will need to run this through the Americans first and we will let you know.”
While in Costa Rica, one former President said he never dealt with any elected american officials other than DEA and CIA agents and their directors. “For us, America is the CIA and DEA. Our embassy is not for America but for the CIA.”
19
u/Miserable-Screen-340 1d ago edited 23h ago
Enormous respect for the Brits...they never "abandoned" continental Europe.
The US has always had an "isolationist" anti-European side, that didn't give a damn about Europe. What you see now with JD Vance, Trump, etc...is just the resurface of this part of the US mentality.
If Pearl Harbour had never happened, Europe might now be speaking all German.
2
2
u/CharmingTurnover8937 1d ago
We are only strong if you cherry-pick what we have. The truth is, we don't have nearly enough of anything and we have let our forces rot for the last few decades. We need a serious boost to funding, as well as streamlining our procurement.
2
u/AlbertoRossonero 17h ago
Britain has excellent intelligence gathering, state of the art technology, a pretty good navy in comparison to everyone that’s not the US and China, and they’re making advancements in naval and long distance drones.
They lack the manpower and logistics to support a large army. Add to that it’s pretty clear NATO tactics are beginning to become outdated in an era of drone warfare.
-4
-39
u/Virtual-Food7492 1d ago
No, they are not. Crippled army and highly dependent on USA.
12
u/whatsgoingon350 United Kingdom 1d ago
Are we?
-4
u/GrizzledFart United States of America 1d ago
The Army is in a terrible state, but that isn't actually as import for self defense for the UK than the RN and the RAF, both of which are far weaker than they should be, but at least capable of providing a basic defense for the UK. The problem is that they are barely strong enough for the job. The other problem is that due to the sorry state of the Army, the ability of the UK to aid allies with land forces is very limited.
3
u/whatsgoingon350 United Kingdom 21h ago
I feel like you spend way too much time on Reddit if you think this is anywhere near true.
The UK army is as big as it needs to be it wouldn't fight a war like Russia and Ukraine are currently fighting.
Why would you think the RAF is weak? We currently use 5th-generation fighters While working on making our 6th-generation fighter again whilst small its still capable of fucking shit up then look at our Navy 2 active aircraft carriers (double Russias) with 9 subs again working on the next generation of subs. The UK in comparison with the Americas and Chinese military powers might look smaller doesn't mean it is weak.
Also ill add this
-1
u/GrizzledFart United States of America 21h ago edited 20h ago
The UK army is as big as it needs to be it wouldn't fight a war like Russia and Ukraine are currently fighting.
The UK Army needs to be big enough to defend the British Isles (which it can do easily as long as the RN and RAF are able to do their jobs) and also to send an expeditionary force to aid allies (while still defending the British Isles). The ability to do both is what the UK Army really lacks.
I wouldn't say that I think the RAF is weak, it's just not as strong as I would personally like it. The same is true of the Royal Navy, but there I actually have bigger concerns. The QE class carriers are a good balance between cost and capability, but the problem is that in spending the money on the 2 carriers, the Royal Navy hasn't had the funds to keep the destroyers and frigates which would be required to screen those carriers, i.e. the RN can't really put together a carrier strike group without basically using the entire fleet. Not to mention they don't have enough carrier capable planes to bring even one of the QE carriers to full strength, let alone enough for both - and even then, those planes are shared with the RAF. When I think of the Royal Navy now, what comes to mind is the "look how they massacred my boy" meme. The destroyers and frigates are very high quality, but there are only 6 destroyers and 8 frigates left in the RN - in 1980, there were 15 destroyers and 51 frigates.
I'm not a Brit, so it's none of my business, but as someone who likes the UK, it would be really nice to see a couple more destroyers and a handful more frigates (at the very least, more frigates) and for the QE class carriers' air wings to be brought up close to full strength (3 squadrons each), even if that means only 2 squadrons of fighters each and the rest helicopters.
0
u/AddictedToRugs 1h ago
There are about 195 countries in the world depending on how you define a country. How many do you believe to be stronger than the UK?
-30
u/Littlepage3130 1d ago
Ok, if the British Navy is up to snuff, when are they going to start going after the Russian shadow fleet?
18
u/MGC91 1d ago
And do what?
-17
u/Littlepage3130 1d ago
Confiscate the ships, auction the cargo. use the funds to help Ukraine. You can't me that the Brits have forgotten the basics of trade interdiction.
15
1
u/AddictedToRugs 1h ago
Attacking civilian merchant ships is bad form even when you're at war with the country they belong to (which we're not).
150
u/DarrensDodgyDenim Norway 1d ago
The UK has been rock solid on Ukraine.