"The cuts in the military budget and military forces in the UK mean that this country is no longer a full military partner of the United States."
The former head of the Pentagon Robert Gates made such a harsh statement last week on the BBC radio station.
“We have always counted on British troops on the other side of the Atlantic that could carry out the full range of combat operations. However, a significant cut in defense spending deprives the UK of the full partner status it once was."
Among the most dubious decisions of the British leadership, R. Gates sees the reduction of naval forces.
"For the first time since World War I, Her Majesty's Navy has no operational aircraft carriers."
According to Gates, this deprives the UK of the ability to conduct military operations without using air bases on the territory of other countries.
A statement was also made on the inadmissibility of reducing the naval strategic nuclear forces.
A loud interview with the ex-head of the Pentagon did not go unanswered - the very next day, denials from British officials followed.
“I disagree with Gates's point of view. I think he is wrong. We have the fourth largest military budget in the world and we are continuously upgrading our military capabilities. We are a first-class country in terms of defense capabilities, and as long as I am Prime Minister, this will be so."
- British Prime Minister David Cameron.
Another senior British Defense official said his country has the most trained and best equipped military outside of the United States.
Let me remind you that the reason for the heated debate was the program of reforming the British Armed Forces, according to which by 2020 the number of personnel in the army, aviation and navy will be reduced by 30 thousand people (in return there will be a slight increase in the number of reservists). By the beginning of the new decade, 147 thousand people should remain in active military service.
How true are Robert Gates' fears and what does the UK have in the near future? About this - in a short dossier, which presents an independent view on the situation with the reform of the armed forces of Her Majesty.
Facts and figures
By 2020, the British army will have only five multipurpose brigades with 200 Challenger 2 main battle tanks.
Even taking into account the high-class equipment and the introduction of the most modern technologies in the field of high-precision ammunition, vehicles, communications and command and control systems, such insignificant forces will turn out to be incapable of independent conduct of hostilities. The British army, as before, will play the role of the US "second" in all local conflicts in the near future.
However, the British are more than happy with this situation: a compact army of "European type" for solving auxiliary tasks in local wars … The heirs of the once great British Empire no longer pretend to be more. And they cannot claim for a number of objective economic and geopolitical reasons.
The criticism of the RAF is no less serious. By the beginning of the 21st century, British military aviation had finally degraded and turned into a small provincial structure, without any hint of solving global problems.
The complete absence of long-range bomber aircraft. The combat core of the Air Force is one hundred light Eurofighters and the same number of Tornado fighter-bombers.
The situation is more than comical. In its current form, the Royal Air Force is many times inferior in combat power even to the Air Force of its former colony - India. And roughly correspond to the Singapore Air Force. There is no need to talk about any serious comparison of the British Air Force with the Israeli Air Force (Hal Avir).
The logical result is that the British Air Force matches the ground forces. Small "pocket" army with limited capabilities.
First F-35B built for the RAF
On the positive side for the British: by 2020, the obsolete "Tornado" will be replaced by the new F-35 VTOL aircraft of the "B" modification.
There is a full range of auxiliary aircraft: AWACS, tankers, RTR aircraft and other specialized vehicles, without which the effective use of combat aviation would be impossible.
In service there is a large number of rotary-wing aircraft, incl. over 60 Apache attack helicopters (licensed assembly of Westland).
An increase in the number of "drones" is expected - to date, ten reconnaissance and attack UAVs MQ-9 "Reaper" have been purchased in the United States.
In general, the potential of the Royal Air Force will remain at the same level and even benefit from the emergence of a new generation of technology. The forthcoming reduction in the number of personnel (by 4,000 people), obviously, will concern the rear and staff positions. The number of aircraft will remain unchanged.
If the blatant weakness of the ground and air forces can be attributed to the traditional "naval" specialization of Great Britain, then what does the situation with the Royal Navy look like?
Lady of the seas. It's useless to argue
Robert Gates, with his reproaches to the British Admiralty, hit the sky, to put it mildly. As of 2014, Her Majesty's fleet is in a better position than in all the last 30-40 years. The Navy is the only branch of the British Armed Forces that is capable of independently conducting military operations without resorting to the help of "Uncle Sam".
If in 1982 the British admirals were able to win the war 12 thousand kilometers from their native shores, it is difficult to imagine what they are capable of today, having submarines with SLCM "Tomahawk", unique air defense ships of the "Daring" type and a whole armada of high-class auxiliary equipment.
Mr. Gates' fears about the absence of aircraft carriers and the need to use air bases in other countries instead of them sound, to say the least, ridiculous. Who, if not the ex-head of the Pentagon, knows better than others about the methods of waging modern war? Any major military operation is carried out with the participation of ground-based aircraft. In preparation for Operation Desert Storm, the US Air Force and dozens of its allies flooded not only all military bases, but also most civilian airports in the Middle East - from the UAE to Egypt!
To declare the inability of Her Majesty's fleet to conduct hostilities due to the lack of aircraft carriers is pure populism, which has nothing to do with reality.
Frankly, the British have not had full-fledged aircraft carrier ships for the past 35 years - after the decommissioning of the HMS Ark Royal in 1979. But there was a victory in the naval Falklands War.
By 2020, the Navy is to replenish two large aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class. The Kuins were conceived as good ships for controlling the sea zone - with a modern layout, a gas turbine power plant and an air wing based on F-35S fighters. Due to a continuous string of budget cuts, the project fell into complete disrepair. The ships under construction have become terribly expensive structures with worthless characteristics. Suffice it to say that the Queens air group will be limited to the F-35B. There are no AWACS aircraft and are not expected.
Hopes for the entry of these ships into service under the White Ensign flag are dwindling every year. The British Admiralty is increasingly wondering whether such ships are needed? Or is it worth mothballing the Kuins and subsequently reselling them to South Korea or Taiwan?
Currently, there are no aircraft carriers in the Navy, even nominally (the elderly HMS Illustrious was retrained as an amphibious helicopter carrier, its decommissioning is scheduled for the current year). But the British are not too sad about their lack of ships of this class.
After all, they have:
- six Daring-class air defense destroyers, whose appearance set new standards in the field of naval anti-aircraft missile systems. A more detailed story about these technical masterpieces can be found here -
No other country in the world has destroyers of this level. In terms of the capabilities of its detection equipment and anti-aircraft missile weapons, the Daring surpasses any of the existing (or under construction) ships. Even the inevitable distortions and manipulations for "advertising purposes" are not able to spoil the overall impression of the ship: today its systems have no analogues in the world, there is simply nothing to compare them with;
- 13 Duke-class frigates. Multifunctional ships with a displacement of about 5,000 tons and with an unexpectedly large autonomy for their size. By now, frigates of this type are noticeably outdated, but they are still capable of effectively solving anti-submarine defense tasks and performing patrol / escort functions in any area of the World Ocean.
Further - a group of "amphibious" ships:
- two transport-docks of the "Albion" type;
- helicopter carrier (UDC) of the "Ocean" type - a typical "Mistral" with a British accent.
Submarine forces are a "black pearl" on the lists of the Navy's ships. In total, 11 submarines are currently in service with Her Majesty's fleet. All are atomic. The British Navy traditionally adheres to the "shock" concept of development; "Diesel people" are ineffective when operating on long-range lines.
All British multipurpose submarines have the ability to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles.
The most controversial element of the British submarine fleet is the four Vanguard-class missile carriers with Trident II ballistic missiles. The liberal part of the government proposes to get rid of this "remnant of the Cold War" as soon as possible. Objectively, four SSBNs will not play any role in a hypothetical nuclear war against the background of the nuclear arsenals of Russia, the United States or China.
On the other hand, proponents of the naval strategic nuclear forces are confident that the presence of SSBNs gives Britain some "confidence" in the games on the international arena. This enhances the international status and contributes to the enhancement of national security. In May 2011, the British Parliament approved the allocation of funds for the design of a new generation of SSBNs.
Finally, RFA - Royal Fleet Auxiliary cannot be ignored. Auxiliary ships and vessels manned by civilians in peacetime. Designed to increase the mobility of battleship squadrons and ensure the rapid transfer of army units to any continent of the Earth. The Royal Auxiliary Fleet lists 19 ships and vessels - naval tankers and integrated supply ships, helicopter carriers, dock transports, floating workshops and container carriers.
Landing ship RFA Largs Bay
Perspectives
By the beginning of the next decade, obsolete frigates should be replaced with new "global warships" (Type 26, GCS). All 7 planned multipurpose nuclear-powered submarines of the Estute type will be commissioned. Perhaps the emergence of two aircraft carriers and the beginning of the construction of new SSBNs.
The reduction in the number of personnel of the Navy is due only to the greater automation of new ships (for comparison, the regular crew of the destroyer "Daring" is only 190 people, 2 times less than that of destroyers of other states).
Otherwise, Her Majesty's fleet will remain the same, the third-strongest fleet in the world.
The truth and lies of Robert Gates
In an interview with the BBC, the ex-head of the Pentagon did not reveal anything new. He just spoke in a rude and impolite form about what is not customary to speak out loud: none of the NATO members can be a full-fledged military partner of the United States. All of them, in one way or another, depend on Uncle Sam - and Great Britain is no exception.
The forthcoming reduction in the number of armed forces is unlikely to affect the combat effectiveness of the British army, air force and navy. The Royal Armed Forces remain committed to protecting the integrity of the Crown's overseas possessions.
The main concern for the United States is the decline in the British military presence overseas. Strategists from the Pentagon understand that the key to reducing defense spending will be a reduction in the number of British military contingent in Afghanistan - up to the complete withdrawal of British troops from the territory of this country. The departure of the main ally, whose units have by now performed up to 20% of the assigned tasks in local wars, may come as an unpleasant surprise and result in additional costs for the Pentagon.
That is why such a reaction and harsh statements in the style of "if you are not able to maintain an army performing the same tasks with the same risk as our soldiers, we will not have a full-fledged alliance."
