UK's defence dilemma. Unprepared for War, misallocated military funds

Reports from Sky News have revealed that the UK government lacks a defence plan for its territory or any preparation for a full-scale war. Investigations have shown no existing comprehensive plans for war operations within the UK's government. The initial steps to address this are scheduled for the latter half of April, beginning with a war game. This event will involve the armed forces, representatives from the Prime Minister's office, and the ministries of defence and internal affairs. Their goal will be to discuss how each department and the government would respond during a war.

It's understood that the potential engagement of the United Kingdom in a large-scale war would necessitate mobilizing both the industrial sector and society at large, recalling the approaches taken during World War II. It would also call for increased defence spending and investment in the arms industry. There is no specific plan for such actions, which could face political and financial challenges.

One potential solution is to revisit the Government War Books, a collection of guidelines for state organization during wartime that was abandoned some 20 years ago because it was deemed unnecessary.

The claim that there are no planning documents is somewhat misleading. For instance, in 2021, the British government published "Defence in a Competitive Age," in March of the current year, the "Defence Nuclear Enterprise Command Paper" was released. However, these documents focus primarily on the military, not on the comprehensive security of the state, highlighting the general lack of strategic planning exacerbated by chaotic and sometimes irrational modernization.

Over the past three decades, encompassing the "end of history" period, British authorities have shown a notable aptitude for misallocating funds. Several examples stand out, notably the BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft. An attempt to modernize the older Hawker Siddeley Nimrod MR2, it featured new engines, avionics, and an improved fuselage. Still, it was scrapped in 2010 after £3.8 billion had been spent, following delays and budget overruns.

The Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers represent another significant investment with limited return. These vast ships are limited to carrying helicopters and F-35B STOVL aircraft, lacking the capability for traditional fixed-wing aircraft due to the choice of a ski-jump launch system over a catapult. This decision and the high costs have resulted in impressive yet capability-restricted vessels.

On land, the Ajax reconnaissance vehicle project is noted for its issues, including delays and technical problems that risk soldiers' health. Similarly, the FV510 Warrior infantry fighting vehicle is undergoing a muted modernization, soon to be replaced by the German-wheeled Boxer vehicles. This move represents a full circle of decisions, from initial involvement to withdrawal and a costly reentry.

Even at its debut, the Challenger 2 tank sparked debates due to its outdated rifled barrel gun. Despite plans to modernize these tanks, including upgrading their weaponry to match that of the Leopard 2s, the modernized Challenger 3 highlights the limitations of this approach, with only a fraction of the existing tanks being updated.

Furthermore, the UK's reliance on the Rheinmetall company for the modernization of its Challenger 2 tanks and the production of Boxers raises concerns about the autonomy of the British Army's armoured capabilities.

In sum, the defence of a global nuclear power like the United Kingdom is evidently in crisis. The upcoming staff games may offer immediate strategies, but addressing these issues comprehensively requires significant effort and investment.