SkyNews reported from their "sources" that it is understood that:

- The armed forces would run out of ammunition "in a few days" if called upon to fight

- The UK 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 war-fighting division of some 25,000 to 30,000 troops backed by tanks, artillery and helicopters

- Some 30% of UK forces on high readiness are reservists who are unable to mobilise within NATO timelines - "so we'd turn up under strength"

- 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

Source: https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-...

Some of those comments are perhaps a bit unfair but it's well known the weakness of European armies.

That article seemed to me like a microcosm of what's wrong with UK journalism since Brexit. Every one of those issues is shared with Europe as a whole (or in the case of "the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring", basically every country on the planet as I understand it), but the article makes the UK look uniquely bad by using a completely different framing when talking about the UK's military vs other countries like France and Germany. For the UK they talk only about the current problems, whereas for other countries they focus only on the fact that those countries have annouced plans to improve their militaries whilst ignoring the current state of their militaries and the question of whether those plans are realistically going to work or actually happen. Germany's military in particular is in an awful state and they've kept on putting off the supposed funding increase it's meant to be getting.

Like, the UK is arguably the main military power in Europe at this point and a major contributor to Ukraine not being outright annexed by Russia, but you wouldn't get that impression at all from the article.

* * *

Armchair quarterbacks can always find something wrong with a military.

Many of the force composition decisions for the UK circa 1980, particularly the use of light "aircraft carriers" that the Harrier operated from, were controversial. The war with Argentina went very well for the UK but if they'd had worse luck those decisions would be seen differently.

In the US in the 1980s I remember seeing television documentaries about how the M-1 Abrams tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle would not be effective at protecting our forces but then in the 1st Gulf War these turned out to be superb.

The difference is that EU armies are improving, while the UK army is worsening.

The UK is probably still the strongest military in Europe, but it’s trend is wrong.

The UK is an island country with its single actual existential threat getting its own military capability shredded in Ukraine. Unless something wacky happens and France decides to reignite the Hundred Years war the UK really doesn't need much of a military anymore anyway, so why invest in it?

As an island country the UK is still highly dependent on global trade. It makes sense to invest in a strong navy plus some expeditionary land and air forces in order to keep their sea lines of communication open. They need to have their own capabilities as a matter of national survival rather than relying on the US.

It also makes sense for the UK to continue funding a proxy war in Ukraine. This allows them to bleed Russia to death and eliminate that threat for years to come at a minimal cost.

And the UK has done that. It has two aircraft carriers.

It's pretty unclear why it should have an army that's literally ready to go at full strength within days. The US does that but US levels of military spending are hardly normal. Even in WW2 there was time to rearm. Huge military conflicts on your doorstep rarely come out of nowhere, they are seen coming. The most likely next conflict after Ukraine is still Taiwan and the UK's role in that will likely be minimal regardless of the strength of the armed forces.

> Warnings about the state and future trajectory of the UK armed forces have been coming from the US side for a number of years now.

And they can all be solved by buying American weapons... funny that.

The UK has a very healthy domestic defense industry that makes most of its money selling to the Americans. I imagine BAE Systems would appreciate the local business.

Selling arms to despots is one of the things that's actually going well in the UK.

You're talking about the UK, the core of a former global empire with no shortage of arms manufacturing expertise.

They can also be solved by developing their own industry. Not sure they want to spend the money on it though.

Man, if he doesn't like the UK army, wait until he looks at the rest of Europe...