Mass still critical to winning the fight: UK Chief of General Staff

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shattered many long-held, post-Cold War myths, whether it was the unrestricted liberalisation of the global economy, the ultimate triumph of liberal democracy over autocratic systems or the “End of History” as championed by Francis Fukuyama in the widespread elation that swept across the Western World for much of the early post-Cold War years.

Fast forward to today and we now know that those heady days of optimism and hubris have been shattered with autocratic nations on the march across the globe and the post-Second World War economic, political and strategic order in retreat, with the world’s formerly great imperial powers not far behind.

Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the United Kingdom, as the nation seemed to be regaining some semblance of stability following the chaos of the Brexit vote, the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing political fallout following the resignation of Boris Johnson, followed by the subsequent transition from Liz Truss to Rishi Sunak, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine adding further fuel to the fire thrusting the United Kingdom into a position not experienced since the early days of the Second World War.

For the British Armed Forces, the Russian invasion and subsequent waves of US and UK-led financial and military aid couldn’t come at a worse time. Despite an ambitious plan for the modernisation and restructuring of the British Armed Forces by former prime minister Boris Johnson, which aimed to focus the nation’s attention towards the rapidly developing multipolar world order, particularly in eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

In doing so, Johnson sought to re-establish the UK as a pre-eminent global military, economic, and political power, or a new “Global Britain”. This radical approach echoed comments made by former UK defence secretary Gavin Williamson in early 2019, when he promised a “major departure and reorientation” and the first major shift in UK defence policy for the first time since the introduction of the “east of Suez” doctrine in the 1960s.

At the time, Williamson described the post-Brexit era as “our biggest moment as a nation since the end of the Second World War, when we can recast ourselves in a different way, we can actually play the role on the world stage that the world expects us to play”. These lofty ambitions appear to have run aground, with rather disastrous results for the British Armed Forces and the British Army, in particular.

The road so far and no longer a ‘top tier’ fighting force

VIEW ALL

This has resulted in growing concerns about the material capabilities of the British Armed Forces in the modern context. This point has recently been reinforced by a senior US general who had pointed warning for the United Kingdom’s Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace: “Bottom line ... it’s an entire service unable to protect the UK and our allies for a decade”. This was further compounded by a series of concerning details outlined about the state of readiness of the British Armed Forces, namely:

• The British Armed Forces would run out of ammunition “in a few days” if called upon to fight.
• The Royal Air Force lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring.
• It would take five to 10 years for the Army to be able to field a warfighting division of some 25,000 to 30,000 troops backed by the required tanks, artillery, and helicopters.
• Thirty per cent of the UK’s forces on high readiness are reservists who are unable to mobilise within NATO timelines.
• 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.

Perhaps the most concerning part of this warning, the US general reportedly told Wallace, “You haven’t got a tier one [force]. It’s barely tier two [force].” This is particularly concerning for the United Kingdom, when the US, Russia, China, and France are ranked as “tier one” powers, while Germany and Italy are examples of “tier two” powers.

However, despite this seeming downgrade in the eyes of the world’s pre-eminent tactical and strategic power, British Chief of the General Staff (CGS), General Sir Patrick Sanders, has sought to mobilise the British Armed Forces and begin rallying available personnel across the whole-of-nation following startling realisations and fallout from the Ukraine conflict.

Mass is still ‘indispensable’ in the modern battlespace

Across the Western defence and strategic policy conversation, questions about manpower have become increasingly important, as many nations, including the United Kingdom and Australia, struggle to meet recruitment quotas, placing increased emphasis on the advent of new technologies, namely automation, artificial intelligence, and uncrewed systems to plug the gaps.

The conflict in Ukraine has only served to reinforce this recognition and is increasingly forcing the hand of many nations as they seek to fill their respective recruitment quotas, something GEN Sanders highlighted recently in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute’s (RUSI) Land Warfare Conference.

“We should treat many of these lessons with caution; one wonders what shape we would be in if, in the first few days after the Russian invasion, we had sold off our armour to invest in [Turkish-made Bayraktar] TB2 or one-way attack drones,” GEN Sanders told the audience.

Expanding further, GEN Sanders explained that based on the lessons of Ukraine, saying, “Ukraine has reminded us that success can only be achieved with a secure land industrial base together with the stockpiles to sustain the fight. That mass is still indispensable. That we need to plan to reinforce and regenerate the force — for to only focus on the first echelon — i.e. those troops that we will put into battle at the start of a war — is to prepare for failure.”

However, equally important is the balancing between traditional platforms and next-generation capabilities that are currently being designed, built, and fielded across both the United Kingdom and the broader Western world, including Australia, and the role this generational rejuvenation will play in shaping the British Army and broader Armed Forces in the next decade.

GEN Sanders said, “Many of our platforms are outdated and not fit-for-purpose. I trained on the 432 armoured personnel carrier in the 1980s when it was already 30 years old; it is still in service today. Our armoured reconnaissance vehicle CVR(T) came into service in 1973, our infantry fighting vehicle Warrior in 1987 and Challenger 2 in 1998; these are rotary dial telephones in an iPhone age. Now change is coming. Over £35 billion is being spent on new equipment over the next 10 years. Thirty-five out of our 38 existing platforms are going out of service and being replaced by new capabilities; they will make us one of the most modern, connected, and lethal armies in the world.

“The Army is restoring momentum — but we must accept that our procurement record has been poor and our land industrial base has withered ... we will maximise the Land Industrial Strategy’s full potential. I have now seen the full extent of the decline in our sovereign land industrial base. It is essential that we relight the furnaces and work with industry to build national resilience and help our country prosper. We will support wholeheartedly DE&S’ reform of our acquisition processes to ensure we can play our part in supporting the UK’s new science and technology framework — and fully benefit from our nation’s world-leading innovation and research," GEN Sanders said.

Final thoughts

As we grapple with the challenges presented by the rapidly evolving global geopolitical order, enhancing Australia’s capacity to act as an independent power, incorporating great power-style strategic economic, diplomatic, and military capability serves as a powerful symbol of Australia’s sovereignty and evolving responsibilities and commitment to supporting and enhancing the security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific Asia.

Equally, the Australian public needs to be educated on the challenges we face in our region and more broadly, the post-Second World War order upon which our wealth and stability is built, because without it, many Australians will blindly simply go with the flow and watch as we fade into the pages of history.

Australia is consistently told that as a nation, we are torn between our economic relationship with China and the longstanding strategic partnership with the US, placing the country at the epicentre of a great power rivalry — but what if it didn’t have to be that way?

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..