by General Lord Richard Dannatt for The Telegraph.
The future of the British Army and the prosecution of the war in Ukraine are inextricably linked. Both are critical to the future security of Europe. Should Russia not be defeated in Ukraine then the threat to those countries bordering Russia will remain intense and destabilising. Even if Ukraine succeeds in restoring all its territory, and there is a subsequent change of leadership in the Kremlin, it will take many years for a new relationship between the West and Russia to develop with any degree of mutual confidence.
In the meantime, NATO’s deterrent posture must provide the reassurance that Europe needs. That requires the British Army to play its full part in that deterrence. The forthcoming NATO summit in Vilnius later this month will see member nations declare their land force contributions under NATO’s New Force Model.
Allies will be watching the UK’s declarations with keen interest. There are already suspicions that the British Army is a hollowed-out version of its former self, and in some commentator’s eyes at risk of becoming NATO’s weak link.
Last week saw the annual Land Warfare Conference hosted by the Royal United Services Institute and addressed by the present Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders. Twelve of his fellow Army Chiefs from across NATO attended the conference. Such is the level of interest in future British Army development.
Sadly, the line that much of British equipment is outdated and not fit for purpose, described as akin to being “…rotary dial telephones in an iPhone age”, was the one that caught the headlines. This was quickly followed by the announcement that General Sanders was to retire next year after only two years as Chief of the General Staff.
Speculation about a rift between him and Defence Secretary Ben Wallace flourished.
It had been agreed at the outset of his appointment that General Sanders would only serve for two years as CGS, having already headed Joint Forces Command as a full General since 2019.
With the prospect of boundary changes removing his constituency and a likely summer reshuffle, Ben Wallace is selecting the next CGS now to avoid further speculation and to ensure that there is continuity of thought between Sanders and his successor, whoever he or she may be. The names of the four contenders are already in the public domain.
The successful candidate is likely to be known before the summer recess. As a former Army officer himself, Ben Wallace is as keen as any other that there is continuity in our land warfare leadership and capability.
Having confidence in a line of succession is as important for the country as it is for the army. Issues of national security need to be addressed by leaders who can be respected and trusted, and who can work collaboratively with government ministers and fellow service chiefs alike.
The threat to our security presented by Russia today is analogous to the threat to our security posed in the 1930s by the rise of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Then, the British Government’s response too long followed the path of appeasement; rearmament occurring too late to prevent the defeat of the British Army in France in May/June 1940.
History must not be allowed to repeat itself. Today, the strategic context is different to the 1930s, with Putin not just being a theoretical threat like Hitler, but an actual threat, locked in combat with Ukraine which is fighting on behalf of us all. The Ukrainians are buying us in blood time to decide how to respond to the new challenges to European security.
The UK has led the way within Europe in supporting Ukraine. British NLAW anti-tank weapons were at the forefront of stopping the early Russian assault on Kyiv; Stormer anti-aircraft systems helped, and still help, protect Ukrainian skies; and Britain was the first country to pledge main battle tanks. But this comes at a cost. 1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, one of 3rd (UK) Division’s close support artillery regiments, has no guns. We have gifted a large majority of our AS90 armoured self-propelled artillery to Ukraine.
Does this matter? The answer to that question depends entirely on what our plans are under development to make good our equipment and ammunition shortfall. In the short term, the Ukrainians need our weaponry to defeat the Russians – something firmly in our interest, too. However, there is the medium and the long term to be considered. The Ukrainians will not be giving us our artillery back when the war is over. The AS90 guns serve as an example of the wider challenge.
In his speech at the RUSI conference, General Sanders was able to refer to £35 billion pledged to be spent on new equipment over the next 10 years with 35 of our existing 38 land warfare platforms going out of service and being replaced by new capabilities. So, it could be argued money is not the problem. The challenge to the restoration of our overall land warfare capability is the actual delivery of these new capabilities.
To return to our artillery, a contract has been placed very quickly to replace the AS90 guns with a new system called Archer 6x6. But how quickly will that system be delivered? In the meantime, the Commanding Officer of 1st RHA must keep his gunners focussed and motivated.
Here there are parallels with the lack of modern equipment before WW2. There are those who peddle the old mantra that the Army does not know what it wants, is uncertain about its purpose and lacks institutional confidence. For those listening to General Sanders last week, this could not be further from the truth.
With the starkest possible clarity, the war in Ukraine has demonstrated that there are new hi-tech ways of waging warfare, but they do not replace more traditional land manoeuvre-based around armoured vehicles. The new ways of warfare and more traditional ways of warfare combine to describe to us modern warfare. For some it can be fought at arm’s length but for others it remains deep, down and dirty.
For the British Army to be able to fulfil its commitments to the nation and to our NATO partners in future, there must be a revolution not so much in technology – that is already roaring on at pace – but in the defence procurement process and its relationship with industry. A domestic defence industrial strategy must become a reality, bureaucratic processes must be stream-lined, and discipline imposed within the overall process not to change operational requirements during the execution of a contract.
Furthermore, acceptance that 85 per cent of capability requirement fielded now will invariably be more useful than the pursuit of exquisite capabilities scoring 100 per cent but several years late and at increased cost. War sharpens responses. Today, Russian arms factories are on a war footing with workers taking on extra shifts to keep production lines going. It begs the question – to what extent are we mirroring this acceleration here or are we carrying on with normal jogging?
The refresh of the Integrated Review confirmed the Government’s more global foreign policy and defence ambitions and a continued investment in related air and maritime capabilities, but the harsh reality of today is a bloody war on land in Europe. The UK owes it to its NATO allies, to the Ukrainians and to our own citizens to ensure that our Army is equipped and sustained to play its full role in NATO’s deterrent mission.
The leadership, motivation and training are all there but so too must be the equipment. Of course, the numeric size of the regular and reserve Army matters, but what matters more is placing the right equipment in the hands of those soldiers and delivering it on time. On that, I am sure Ben Wallace and Patrick Sanders have always agreed.
For this article in pdf, please click here:
General Lord Dannatt is a former Chief of the General Staff
British tank
Comments