UK defence budget statistics and graphs: Is the UK ready to put boots on the ground in Ukraine?
SIr Keir Starmer held more meetings with European allies to discuss the use of “assurance” power to Ukraine to ensure the security of the country’s future Russian attacks.
After what he described as a “historical” summit in the White House on Monday, he participated in the eight leadership of Europe’s best leaders to try to negotiate a peace agreement with Donald Trump.
Sir Keir has already approved that he was “ready to put boots and planes in the air” to support a peace agreement for the country where the war fell apart. He led the creation of a “willing coalition için to help Ukraine’s defenses. Meanwhile, Trump refused to send American troops to Ukraine.
Prime Minister, Russian President Vladimir Putin, such as “only response to power”, such as “tyrants”, saying that the British defense expenditures promised to increase. At the end of the next period, in order to reach 3 percent by 2027, the promise of increasing GDP to 2.5 percent of GDP, in June in line with the promises of NATO rapidly became five percent.
Relations with Russia have been the worst since the Cold War period, and military experts believe that European countries should be prepared for conflict.
But is England ready Put the boots on the ground; And how could the Armed Forces of England compared to 40 years ago in 1984, when England met with Russia?
How strong is England’s army?
Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defense published its latest figures on military equipment that was correct as of April 2024.
The Army increased the number of main war tanks Challenger II in April from 213 to 219 last year.
The figures of the Ministry of Defense also show that the army is also 128 Ajax armored fighting vehicles, but an update of Defense Minister Lord Coaker shows that only 91 of them are already in service. After years of delay.
The UK also added four new F-35 fighter aircraft, also known as Lightning, and brought the total to 35 according to the latest figures.
Tayfun jets (137), submarine (10), muhripler (6) and frigates (12) remained the same compared to the previous year.
In terms of personnel and ships, the UK’s capacity is significantly lower than 1984, because primarily the UK peace time and equipment needs have developed.
Technology has developed significantly since the 1980s, especially when it comes to air defense and tanks. This means that some equipment will be less in number, but will be of much higher quality.
Although the jet warriors of the 1980s have been technologically developed for their time, the latest aircraft is more like flying super computers. The submarines are designed to escape from more complex perception equipment, and warships have to fight the missiles that travel several times the speed of sound.
Nevertheless, since all of the losses are certain, numbers may be important when entering the war directly.
Stuart Young, a former engineer officer at the Royal Navy and a guest man at Cranfield University, said that some equipment were not at service or because of repair.
“Challenger Main War Tank is currently in service and this is being raised, Young explained. “However, as the difficulty begins to raise, the number of main war tanks will fall from this upgrade cycle until it returns.”
Most of these materials have not been updated for decades, so in some cases England is still relying on equipment built in the Cold War.
In fact, the lack of new acquisitions in 2021, according to a defense committee report called “pity”, the majority of the army’s armored martial vehicles belong to before the 1990s and some come up to sixties. The navy faces similar difficulties.
“The oldest Tip-23 frigates are currently over 30 years of age and the replacement was starting around 2010. These ships are designed for a life of 18 to 21 years,” he said.
If Britain enters the war, it is not clear that the country’s stocks and numbers can be required in time.
. UK NATO welcomed and exceeded the minimum defense expenditure It is estimated that 2 percent of the total economic output or GDP is currently 2.3 percent; And it will rise from 2027 to 2.5 percent.
However, the Security Research Group Rand’s Deputy Director James Black said NATO’s 2 percent target is a “politically derived” number in the post -Cold War environment.
“In the Cold War, countries routinely spent more than 2 percent and spend three, four or five,” he said.
“Therefore, we shouldn’t think that 2 percent is a magical number where you spend enough money that you automatically defend well against all threats.”
Last year, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defense, the first budget, including the increase in defense expenditures, to almost 3 billion £, “Obviously[es] Our commitment to national security and[es] We have a military power suitable for the future. “
However, some military experts are afraid that this is not enough, 3 percent of GDP – an increase of 0.7 percent of £ 16.4 billion per year – it is necessary to renew stocks and prepare the Britain for a possible allied conflict against attackers such as Russia; during Trump called for 5 percent expenditure in Europe.
Young, “Ukraine’s impact and government expenditures in general, we are in a capture.
At a NATO summit in June, the Prime Minister promised to provide 5 percent of expenditures for “national security .. This means increasing the defense budget to 3.5 percent by 2035.
Sir Keir confirmed that defense expenditures would increase by 2.5 percent by 2027, but the 3.5 percent target has a longer longer time period.
However, Mr. Young said he believes that the match of 2.5 percent will not represent any financial improvement for the defense of the UK.
Instead, Mr. Young estimates that this figure will be enough to capture stocks and demand.
“We didn’t invest in missiles and ammunition and things like that, Young said.
In July, the spokesman for the Ministry of Defense admitted that the armed forces have faced resource cuts in the last few years.
“We know that we have faced serious difficulties after the armed forces have been carved for years, and we will evaluate our strategic defense examination, the threats we encounter and the abilities to address them to secure the defenses of our nation.”
The war in Ukraine hit British’s military budget and materials with other NATO members.
Since February 2022, England has promised £ 7.8 billion to Ukraine to Ukraine, and, like other allied countries, donated equipment directly from British defense stocks, including tanks and missiles.
This means that the equipment numbers may be lower than shown in official statistics updated in September 2023.
As a result, if the British defense forces receive capital flow, renewing equipment and weapons can take four or five years.
“New Armed Forces Minister [Luke Pollard] He said we wanted to buy as much defense equipment from the UK as much as possible. England no longer has this capacity. “
Diminishing unity numbers
There is also a major recruitment problem that worsened by the budget cuts of British armed forces; If the forces are deployed, they can create a difficulty.
Young, “Especially if we look at the peace protection activities in need of boats in Ukraine, we need to increase the recruitment. Six months ago, the problems we have experienced has worsened by the latest events,” he said.
The number of people in the armed forces is 45 percent lower than in 1984 compared to the MOD in January 1 this year.
In this, only 127,000 people full -time trained staff, approximately 53,000 people are uneducated or reserve.
Young is receiving education time, money and most importantly holding staff.
In the current labor market, the army fee is no longer competitive – before thinking that how many young people are willing to adhere to the risk of hours, lifestyle and military service.
However, Mr. Young warned that the biggest problem may be a loss of expertise because the higher educated authorities abandoned the army for private sector affairs.
In particular, accommodation quality and other resources for military families are diminishing, which indicates a reason for the former staff with the separation of addicts from the army.
Mr. Young, England, especially as the equipment is technically complex, the armed forces can not afford to lose these highly educated groups, he said.
“We have people who leave the armed forces due to life and working conditions, so you lose their expertise and abilities, or he says.
“So, opening the tap in terms of recruitment does not give you a solution to you. Before you get full -trained people, you will have three or four or five years or more, and then you need to hold them. Now there are skills that are attractive for civilian employees.”
Lessons from Ukraine: long traction
Rand said that Mr. Black, Britain and other NATO members should take lessons from the war in Ukraine to improve long -lasting skills in the war.
“The war in Ukraine assumes that many Western troops will be very deadly, but probably very fast.
However, the ongoing war in Ukraine – now has lasted three years – has shown that this assumption is flawed.
According to a Defense Committee report in February, if the UK would take part in a longer war, the armed forces are not ready to last for more than a few months.
Former Committee Chairman Sir Jeremy Quin said to the MPs that the army could not allocate enough training and resources for the high -intensity war struggle ”.
Mr. Black warns that focus on high -quality, complex machines does not work for long war with difficulties such as fuel supply, fast replacement and stocking.
Nasıl How can I renew my stocks when I fire all my missiles or drop all my bombs?
