Military Review

New UK Defense Strategy

75

"This is the end of the Royal fleet as a force capable of conducting global operations. How will he be able to act, having lost all his aerial reconnaissance and everything else, except for an insignificant part of strike weapons? "


- Peter Carrington, First Lord of the Admiralty and Secretary of Defense of Great Britain; quoted from the debate on Lord Shackleton's February 22nd, 1966 report.

After the end of World War II, the presence of the Royal Navy in the world steadily declined: the collapse of the empire, the coming to power of the Laborites, professing the principles of demilitarization, and the constant reduction in defense spending made it impossible to conduct any active activities of the Kingdom's armed forces outside the state borders and borders of Europe. ...

Now the situation is taking a different turn - Great Britain is returning to the waters of the World Ocean.

In the article "A new era of British hegemony"We considered the concept of the development of the strategic advantage of England, closely related to the economy," soft "power and scientific and technological superiority. London quite specifically defines the main theater of military operations of the future - science will become it, and the soldiers of this war are destined to become researchers, bankers, engineers and diplomats. However, it would be naive to believe that in this regard, Britain will abandon the development of the armed forces - by no means, they have a special place in this strategy ...

After the Suez crisis of 1956, London's policy regarding the financing of the army and navy was, to put it mildly, marked by stinginess - perhaps, without the threat of invasion from the countries of the Warsaw Pact bloc, the British armed forces would have gone completely down. The only instrument for operations abroad was the well-trained special forces, which served as a conduit for the interests of the crown for more than half a century.

New UK Defense Strategy
Britain became the first country in the world to use special forces as a tool of political influence - and it has an extremely rich experience in using them. Photo source: pinterest.com

The Royal Navy, once providing the defense of the world's largest empire, was deliberately destroyed by Labor: the first step was the more than once-mentioned report by Lord Shackleton in 1966, which ended the network of foreign operating naval bases. The next is a normative act of 1975, defining nuclear submarines as the basis of the Navy's strength against the background of a reduction in the surface ship structure. The point was the operational concept of 1981, where the main task of the Royal Navy was called the protection of the Atlantic from a possible breakthrough by the Soviet Navy, and multipurpose nuclear submarines with torpedo and missile weapons were considered the main tool in the war at sea.

Looking at the last news, one gets the impression that nothing has changed: here Britain is again reducing its ground forces, and her tank parts are on the verge of extinction ...

Alas, this is only a delusion.

A dangerous fallacy.

The new British defense strategy will be based on two new regulations from 2021: "Global Britain in a competitive age - The Integrated Review of Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy" (“Global Britain in an Age of Competition: A Comprehensive Review of Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy”) and "Defense in a competitive age" (Defense in a Competitive Era) - Overview provided by the UK Department of Defense. It is on the basis of these documents that we will begin to analyze the new military plans of London.

Strengthening global security


Perhaps, for the Russian reader, this block of British military strategy may seem extremely strange and incomprehensible - unfortunately, it so happened that in our minds the concepts of "war" and "economy" are somewhere unimaginably far from each other.

It is difficult to say what exactly caused such delusions, however, alas, as practice shows, they take place even among the highest echelons of our authorities.

The British, however, are extremely pragmatic in this matter - they are well aware of their very modest demographic resources and military capabilities, realizing that it is impossible to have any weighty position in the world without having a powerful and well-protected economic base. ...

Without order there is no money - and without money there is no power.

"Global security is important to an international order in which open societies and economies like Britain can thrive and cooperate to achieve common goals without coercion or interference."

The main and paramount task of the new strategy is to change the role, functionality and approach to the work of government structures: the clumsy bureaucratic apparatus of the old type is simply unable to cope with modern threats, which means that it must be reformed.

The government will be transformed into a structure maximally focused on systemic competition with other countries. The level of non-admission of the use of military force is decreasing - now it is seen as an adequate tool to respond to the threat to the interests of Britain.

It is also interesting that London recognizes that it is impossible to eliminate or contain every threat, especially in a world in which the boundaries of internal and international security are increasingly blurred. In response to this fact, they plan to create all conditions for the maximum difficulty of any harmful actions, both from unfriendly states and any corporations or terrorist organizations.

Conceptual objectives of the new defense strategy:

1. Resisting threats at home and abroad. It is necessary to expand the international intelligence network, share risks and combine opportunities through collective security; the use of armed forces to thwart enemy plans and contain the enemy through constant hostilities abroad.

2. Resolution of international conflicts and instability. This will deprive the enemy of potential pressure points and improve international economic cooperation. It is planned to achieve this by eliminating all the driving forces of conflicts.

3. Strengthening UK Homeland Security by solving transnational problems - international tasks and interaction should be used as vanguard positions in the fight against terrorism, organized crime, radical religious groups, cybercriminals and foreign agents.

Global naval presence


This element of the new British defense strategy may cause both surprise and bewilderment, but the fact remains that the Royal Navy will again begin to perform tasks throughout.

The reduction and optimization of the land component of the armed forces as a whole can be associated with this - the numerous special operations forces and the navy are becoming the main military non-nuclear tools in London. This, of course, requires additional financial investments, which will be provided, among other things, by the reduced number of the army.

It is worth making a small digression here.

No, Britain no longer plans to take part in any global land war like World War II. For such tasks, London has a nuclear arsenal at its disposal, which will be used against any enemy wishing to encroach on the sovereignty and the very existence of Albion.

The planned size of the armed forces is more than enough for large-scale joint operations with the allies, participation in local conflicts and protection of the state border of Great Britain.

The nuclear deterrent force is the central component around which the entire defense of England functions - we will, however, talk about them separately.

The main element of Britain's naval influence is considered aircraft carrier strike groups. According to the government's plans, at least one AUG must absolutely always be in combat service, being on the forefront of confrontation with unfriendly countries such as Russia or China. However, they will work in close connection with the allied forces - no one is mistaken about the capabilities of only one unit, and the Royal Navy will carry out tasks in constant contact with the US Navy.

For example, during the upcoming first combat service, slated for 2021, the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth will visit the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific region.

The primary responsibility of the Royal Navy is, of course, the protection of Great Britain itself and its fourteen overseas possessions. These tasks can be described in the following way:

1. The Navy will continue to be active in the territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone of Great Britain. The RAF will continue to provide 8/XNUMX operational cover for the fleet, and its capabilities will be significantly enhanced by the supply of new P-XNUMX Poseidon anti-submarine patrol aircraft that monitor the North Atlantic.

2. The Armed Forces will strengthen control over the waters of Gibraltar; The capabilities of the military bases in Cyprus will be significantly expanded, thus ensuring long-term influence in the Eastern Mediterranean. A permanent military presence will be maintained in the Falkland Islands, Ascension Island, and British Indian Ocean territories; The Royal Navy will patrol the Atlantic and Caribbean regions and will conduct anti-trafficking and disaster relief operations during the annual hurricane season.

3. In order to strengthen support and assistance to UK citizens abroad, the range of digital services for obtaining consular assistance will be significantly expanded. The military will maintain a readiness to protect and evacuate British citizens when necessary - including the use of military force.


The Navy is once again taking its rightful place as the conductor of Britain's political will. Photo source: telegraph.co.uk

Briefly, the current prospects of the Royal Navy can be summarized as follows:

1. Ensuring nuclear deterrence is a priority for the fleet, but a global presence is central to the new strategy.

2. The ship's composition will be expanded - by 2030 Britain will have at least 20 destroyers and frigates.

3. Ensuring the protection of underwater infrastructure and the implementation of deep-sea operations - in connection with this need, a new specialized vessel is being built.

4. Radical update of weapons - the fleet will receive new anti-ship missiles and a completely updated anti-mine forces, the core of which will be unmanned minesweepers.

5. The Royal Marines will be reformed, as will the US Marine Corps - the goal of this event is to create a modern rapid reaction force with an independent strike and defense capabilities, capable of becoming the combat core of operations in the coastal zone.

6. In the interests of the Navy, the development of new generation frigates and destroyers will be carried out. The commissioning of ships of this type is planned after 2030.

Defense and deterrence through collective security


There is no room for solo players in the modern world, and Britain is well aware of this.

It is impossible to increase the military budget of one particular country to a level that will allow it to withstand the whole world - and why, if you have allies who are burdened with the same problems and tasks as you?

“The UK's network of military alliances and partnerships is at the heart of our ability to deter and defend against opponents of the state. It is a powerful demonstration of a collective commitment to the free association of sovereign nations and a willingness to share the burden of maintaining an open international order. ”

London attaches paramount importance to cooperation with the NATO countries - for individual players, however, there are special conditions for cooperation (as, for example, with Turkey and the United States), but the rest of Britain's policy is quite unambiguous - it, in essence, remains the leader of the bloc among European countries ensuring the fulfillment of their own national interests through collective defense.


The British ground forces will be transformed into a compact and mobile assault force for lightning-fast operations outside Albion. Photo source: theguardian.com

A set of actions for the organization and development of collective defense:

1. Strengthened leadership among NATO members: a £ 24 billion increase in military spending over the next four years (current rate is 2,2% of GDP). Implementation of the new "NATO Deterrence and Defense Concept", as well as increasing the group of forces in Germany by strengthening them with MTR units and rapid response.

2. Strengthening interstate relations with the members of the bloc: bilateral treaties with the USA and France (Lancaster House and CJEF), with Germany, expansion of activities within the framework of the Joint Expeditionary Force.

3. Carrying out a global modernization of the armed forces. Britain is the only NATO country other than the United States that can conduct high-tech warfare using nuclear, high-precision and cyber weaponas well as fifth generation strike aircraft. A new Space Command will be created, which will be responsible for satellite monitoring and reconnaissance, missile defense and countering the enemy's space potential. The ground forces will be reformed and sharpened for highly mobile operations in the face of global opposition.

4. Development of international weapons programs - in particular, FCAS, designed to create a European multi-role fighter of a new generation.

5. Preparing the country for action in the face of threats of a global military crisis, including a nuclear one. The UK will conduct a series of strategic-level national exercises to test the resilience of the state machine in a critical environment. Similar exercises are planned in the rest of NATO countries.

6. Strengthening the military presence in strategically important areas - such as, for example, the Indo-Pacific region.

Conclusion


Even from such a brief analytical review, a completely unambiguous conclusion can be drawn: Britain does not plan to "push its elbows" trying to knock out its place as a world superpower by force or pressure on its allies - by no means, London is increasing its political weight and importance through active work with friendly countries. The British plans have a place for absolutely everyone - they equally take into account other people's weaknesses and strengths, using them as a means of achieving national interests.

Britain is actively preparing for a new type of war - in modern realities, a strategy based on the postulates of the Cold War is unacceptable. The era of tank armies has finally sunk into oblivion - the era of high-precision weapons, professional and compact mobile units and cyber threats has come.

London gives a completely unambiguous message to all opponents - any threat to Britain's existence will be met with nuclear warheads. The navy, on the other hand, is once again taking its rightful place as a conductor of political will, while the army is becoming an effective and compact tool, sharpened to resist hybrid threats and local adversaries. In fact, the British ground forces are acquiring the character of a high-tech airborne assault force with a large number of special forces.

Of course, the new British government strategy is extremely strong precisely because of its realism. There is no place in it for empty dreams and unrealizable plans - there is only exceptional pragmatism, a sober assessment of one's capabilities and truly achievable goals.

High tech. The science. Adaptability. Demographic potential. International cooperation. Precision weapons. Mobility. "Soft" power. Hybrid confrontation.

Here it is - weapons of the new world.

The world that is being formed before our eyes.
Author:
Photos used:
pinterest.com telegraph.co.uk theguardian.com
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Svarog
    Svarog April 9 2021 18: 08
    -6
    Great Britain .. or rather just Britain, militarily, after the Second World War, it is no longer a player .. intrigues .. scandals .. then yes .. everything is the same as before ..
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 9 2021 18: 24
      +8
      Dear Svarog, please take the trouble to read the materials before commenting on them.

      You now, to put it mildly, present yourself as a person who is absolutely not versed in either post-war British history or modernity.
      1. Svarog
        Svarog April 9 2021 18: 36
        +4
        Quote: Anjay V.
        You now, to put it mildly, present yourself as a person who is absolutely not versed in either post-war British history or modernity.

        I did not see any real facts about
        Of course, the new British government strategy is extremely strong precisely because of its realism. There is no place in it for empty dreams and unrealizable plans - there is only exceptional pragmatism, a sober assessment of one's capabilities and truly achievable goals.

        Except blah blah .. blah .. All that you have described is voiced and strived for by all countries .. where are the facts? what ultra-modern weapons Britain possesses .. the slogans are solid .. Here is a hidden game they are playing an interesting and there is a lot to learn ..
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana April 9 2021 18: 39
          +3
          A very good and important article! Extremely relevant.
          1. Anzhey V.
            April 9 2021 20: 55
            +2
            A very good and important article! Extremely relevant.


            Thank you, Tatiana!
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana April 9 2021 22: 00
              +3
              Quote: Anjay V.
              A very good and important article! Extremely relevant.
              Thank you, Tatiana!

              I even took this article of yours into my favorites, so that you can once again carefully return to it at any time.
              1. Anzhey V.
                April 9 2021 22: 08
                +2
                Thank you! It is gratifying to hear that some of the readers are so interested in the material.

                This, however, is not the last article devoted to British strategic plans, so I hope that the following materials will seem to you no less interesting.
                1. Tatyana
                  Tatyana April 9 2021 22: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: Anjay V.
                  Thank you! It is gratifying to hear that some of the readers are so interested in the material.
                  This, however, is not the last article devoted to British strategic plans, so I hope that the following materials will seem to you no less interesting.

                  Write, Arkady! Everything that you write is very important and corresponds to the theme of the site "VO"!
                  I wish you success in this work of yours!
                  1. Anzhey V.
                    April 9 2021 22: 16
                    +2
                    Thank you Tatiana!
        2. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 19: 07
          +5
          Naturally, everything cannot be put into one article; it is necessary to write separately on the technical development of the fleet and the Air Force. But even now, the royal fleet is capable of single-handedly opposing the Baltic and Northern fleets of Russia. If the plans are implemented and the current power in Russia is preserved, it will surpass the entire combined fleet of the Russian Federation. This means undermining nuclear parity.
          1. Svarog
            Svarog April 9 2021 19: 11
            +1
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            Naturally, everything cannot be put into one article; it is necessary to write separately on the technical development of the fleet and the Air Force. But even now, the royal fleet is capable of single-handedly opposing the Baltic and Northern fleets of Russia. If the plans are implemented and the current power in Russia is preserved, it will surpass the entire combined fleet of the Russian Federation. This means undermining nuclear parity.

            The fact that we have "no" fleet .. in my opinion everyone knows .. as well as the fact that Russia is not a maritime power .. and what will the UK do in the event of 5 nuclear warheads hitting its small territory ..?
            1. Avior
              Avior April 9 2021 19: 38
              +5
              Most likely, it will respond with a full-fledged nuclear strike.
              It is very strange for someone to start a nuclear war with England, as this will weaken the country, and there is also the United States.
              1. Svarog
                Svarog April 9 2021 19: 44
                +8
                Quote: Avior
                It is very strange for someone to start a nuclear war with England, as this will weaken the country, and there is also the United States.

                For me in general it seems strange to start a war between nuclear powers .. because even a 60% probability of complete destruction should cool any hot head .. and in confirmation of the fact that for more than 80 years there have been no warriors .. I mean serious. And I'm sure it won't. There is no point in fighting with the Russian Federation now .. another 30 years of such a policy and the population will die out by 50% .. The enemy of the Anglo-Saxons is now China .. even not an enemy, but a competitor .. but not the Russian Federation .. with "our" oligarchs and a country that in fact "gas station" with the king in African countries .. well, what's the point of fighting?
                1. Avior
                  Avior April 9 2021 20: 00
                  +4
                  We are discussing what will happen if five nuclear warheads are fired at England - that is, NATO's response.
                  As for the States and NATO on their part, any war will begin with economic, financial and political isolation. Not those weak measures that we have now, but tough economic measures, which, among other things, allow significant economic losses for NATO, as was the case in the war.
                  1. Svarog
                    Svarog April 9 2021 20: 05
                    -1
                    Quote: Avior
                    We are discussing what will happen if five nuclear warheads are fired at England - that is, NATO's response.

                    All this is hypothetical .. Are you sure that with the sudden and complete destruction of England, some of the countries of Europe or the United States would dare to strike back? I'm not .. Hitler, then everything is crap .. and then 100% destruction .. the merchants will want to negotiate .. this is how they differ from the wars ..
                    As for the States and NATO on their part, any war will begin with economic, financial and political isolation. Not those weak measures that we have now, but tough economic measures, which, among other things, allow significant economic losses for NATO, as was the case in the war.

                    I agree ... that is how they will act if Volodya does not give them the next piece they want ..
                    1. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 21: 06
                      +3
                      Quote: Svarog
                      Are you sure that with the sudden and complete destruction of England, some of the countries of Europe or the United States will dare to strike back?

                      The strategic nuclear forces of England cannot be destroyed by a sudden strike. A return volley from them will arrive guaranteed. From the USA I am 99% sure that yes, France is really not a fact, they have their own policy.

                      Update information about the current state of the strategic nuclear forces, you are clearly thinkers of the category of the end of the USSR. Our territory (where you can live normally) has decreased significantly, the number of objects for destruction has decreased significantly. In NATO countries it is exactly the opposite. In the event of a nuclear war, they destroy us completely, we do not have them. Only we will inflict excessive harm for which they are not ready. But there is no need to even talk about the "Stone Age".

                      Up-to-date data on arsenals:
                      As of March 1, Russia has deployed 517 ICBMs, ballistic missiles on submarines and heavy bombers, the United States has 651, Russia has 1456 warheads on these carriers, and the United States has 1357. Russia has deployed and non-deployed launchers - 767, while the United States has 800.
                      1. spech
                        spech April 10 2021 07: 18
                        -5
                        The strategic nuclear forces of England cannot be destroyed by a sudden strike.

                        This is because Britain does not have its own strategic nuclear forces! There are missiles and warheads that the United States gave them to support. And who controls them is a separate question.
                      2. Anzhey V.
                        April 10 2021 07: 45
                        +5
                        There are missiles and warheads that the United States gave them to hold


                        Dear, you should at least read something before speaking ...

                        Britain produces the warheads for the Trident itself.

                        And they are loaded into British SSBNs. And they are serviced by British engineers and technicians.
                      3. spech
                        spech April 10 2021 09: 30
                        -5
                        that is, the United States will not even ask Britain and press the red button? You don’t find it very convenient,
                      4. Anzhey V.
                        April 10 2021 10: 00
                        +4
                        Comrade, take your pills, please, and stop spamming with crazy conspiracy theories)
              2. Avior
                Avior April 9 2021 22: 02
                +5
                It will be very difficult to destroy the British nuclear forces - they are unique on nuclear submarines, and a retaliatory strike from England with practically indestructible SLBMs will be necessary, and this strike, like the consumption of nuclear missiles in England, will weaken Russian nuclear forces (there are not an infinite number of nuclear missiles) and, in general, Russian potential. At this point, the states will receive a noticeable advantage, so you should not expect that they will not hit. France, too, by the way, they will not wait when it comes to them, since Russia considers it possible to deliver a nuclear strike, as they wrote.
                Therefore, I think that starting a nuclear war with a strike on England is extremely unwise, it will only weaken the country in its confrontation with the United States.
        3. Keyser soze
          Keyser soze April 9 2021 21: 02
          +7
          and then there is the States.


          And what is worse is China. If you grapple with the Americans, you will give them peace. The whole. Here I know Russian and English, but Cantonese is not mine ... So please, please, bomb Beijing too ... laughing
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 21: 26
            -1
            Quote: Keyser Soze
            but Cantonese is not mine

            Come on, the language itself is still to learn the rules, so writing in hieroglyphs is beyond the bounds ...
      2. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 19: 41
        +3
        Quote: Svarog
        and what will the UK do in the event of 5 nuclear warheads hitting its small territory ..?


        It will deliver a retaliatory nuclear strike with its 180 (until 2030 260) warheads. Only this will allow the destruction of all cities with a population of over one million, important military facilities and critical civilian infrastructure in the European part of Russia. Whereas 5 nuclear warheads will only be enough to destroy London or not a critical number of military facilities. It takes 50-100 warheads to destroy Britain. But the United States and the NATO bloc will enter the war, their total nuclear strike will destroy Russia as a state and civilization, the Russian nation will be exterminated and forgotten.
        There are many times more goals for destruction in NATO than in Russia, a powerful blow will be dealt to Western civilization, but it will remain, while other peoples will occupy our territory. Do not overestimate the power of nuclear weapons, in modern conditions the damaging factors are not so destructive, the same shock wave will fade faster in the conditions of dense multi-storey urban development. The territories will be decontaminated, the cities will be restored. And they will live like in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now, we are not.

        1. Svarog
          Svarog April 9 2021 20: 09
          +1
          Whereas 5 nuclear warheads will only be enough to destroy London

          One of the R-36M, R-36M UTTH, R-36M2, RS-20 will dust 500 sq. kilometers .. What are you talking about .. This is a completely different rocket than the one that fell on Hiroshima .. here the comparisons are different ..
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 20: 19
            -1
            Quote: Svarog
            R-36M, R-36M UTTH, R-36M2, RS-20

            Of these, only the R-36M2 remained on alert.
            Quote: Svarog
            will dust off 500 sq. kilometers.

            London covers an area of ​​about 1580 km², dense urban development, i.e. based on your data, you need 3 governors or 30 nuclear warheads for London.
            Quote: Svarog
            What are you speaking about..

            On the capabilities of the strategic nuclear forces of Russia and NATO.
            1. Svarog
              Svarog April 9 2021 20: 28
              -3
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              On the capabilities of the strategic nuclear forces of Russia and NATO.

              Exactly, the possibilities, although not comparable to the general potential of NATO countries, but in order to subsequently drive people into the Stone Age will be enough ... and for this reason, there have been no large-scale conflicts for more than 80 years ... and there will not be. Especially with the Russian Federation ... for another 30 years and the population of the Russian Federation will be reduced to a critical level, where there will be no need to fight ... the Far East and Siberia will populate China, the European part will be incapable of at least some serious action ..
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 20: 52
                +1
                Quote: Svarog
                later to drive people into the Stone Age is enough

                No, not enough. Staryy26 has more than once made statements (very optimistic in my opinion) on a mutual nuclear strike, according to which Western civilization will live, we will not. This is without taking into account the degradation of our strategic nuclear forces and taking into account 100% of the takeoff of all missiles. Do you believe they can all take off?
                Quote: Svarog
                Especially with the RF ..

                The "Western" world is delighted with what is happening in Russia, we sell raw materials and people, with this money we buy high-tech products or simply export capital. Beauty. The current government works entirely in the interests of the collective West.
                But suddenly (anything can happen in life) national / social / liberal patriots come and start acting in the interests of Russia? Therefore, they are preparing. China is dangerous for all of us, it is an alien culture with which it is impossible to live in the same territory.
            2. Bashkirkhan
              Bashkirkhan April 9 2021 20: 42
              0
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik

              London covers an area of ​​about 1580 km², dense urban development, i.e. based on your data, you need 3 governors or 30 nuclear warheads for London.

              What a nuclear strike on Londongrad, where the children of the RFii elite study and their wives live. It is unacceptable. Stop fantasizing.
      3. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 20: 00
        0
        It should also be borne in mind that the naval and air components of Russia's strategic nuclear forces will be destroyed instantly with conventional weapons, without having time to launch their missiles, how many warheads remain on land-based missiles must be counted. How many of them will not be destroyed by a preemptive strike and are technically ready to launch a speculative question.
        1. stalki
          stalki April 9 2021 20: 23
          -1
          The strategic nuclear forces of Russia will be destroyed instantly with conventional weapons, without having time to launch their missiles,
          If they could, they would have destroyed it already. And so it remains only to dream laughing
    2. Anzhey V.
      April 10 2021 10: 07
      +1
      Naturally, everything cannot be put into one article, you need to write separately on the technical development of the fleet and the Air Force


      Honestly, there will only be a whole article about the ground forces)

      I do not know yet whether it is worth analyzing in detail, especially given such an inadequate reaction from most commentators.
      1. English tarantas
        English tarantas April 10 2021 13: 57
        +3
        Disassemble, write. As the saying goes, the person who liked it won't even write comments - there is no need, he liked it. And those who don't need to listen will be written, especially on such interesting and popular topics. Vaughn about ak-12 "gave out" buffoons, so much nonsense in the comments they wrote.
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 10 2021 14: 39
          +1
          Okay, thank you for your moral support)

          I will disassemble further.
  2. Anzhey V.
    April 9 2021 20: 55
    +1
    Svarog, I will be happy to talk to you - but only when you stop doing empty demagoguery.

    It is inappropriate when discussing official government documents.
    1. Svarog
      Svarog April 9 2021 21: 01
      +2
      Quote: Anjay V.
      It is inappropriate when discussing official government documents.

      Let's discuss our government documents or the USA ... or any other capitalist country .. Don't you think they are all very similar? Perhaps only China has more in common with reality than all the others. My demagoguery is just an answer to demagoguery ..
      1. Anzhey V.
        April 9 2021 21: 10
        +3
        They are all very similar, don’t you?


        No, I don't. This is an extremely superficial view of things.

        However, I do not want to argue with you for the sake of a dispute - here and so there will be thinking and interested people, and they will read the material and draw conclusions for themselves.

        If specifically you have nothing to take out of what you have read - good. I can only be glad for your insight and analytical thinking, which is ahead of that of the British leadership.
        1. Svarog
          Svarog April 9 2021 21: 20
          +3
          Quote: Anjay V.
          If specifically you have nothing to take out of what you have read - good. I can only be glad for your insight and analytical thinking, which is ahead of that of the British leadership.

          I made for myself a long time ago ... Russia, led by today's "elite" drives us to the level of African countries, and the fact that our historical enemies are becoming more dangerous every year is not news at all .. the fact that every year Russia is losing its positions in the world is also not news .. all this does not require deep analysis, everything is on the surface and obvious ..
          However, I do not want to argue with you for the sake of a dispute - here and so there will be thinking and interested people, and they will read the material and draw conclusions for themselves

          Conclusions? What conclusions do you expect ..? Who needs your conclusions, who will pay attention to them? Share them because in the article, your personal conclusions are not .. Everything is lost? Yes, everything was gone long ago.
          1. Anzhey V.
            April 9 2021 22: 05
            +3
            Conclusions? What conclusions do you expect ..? Who needs your conclusions, who will pay attention to them? Share them because in the article, your personal conclusions are not .. Everything is lost? Yes, everything was gone long ago.


            I did not plan any personal conclusions in this material, tk. the review is not over yet and they will be premature.

            With decadence, you are not for me, sorry.

            But if you so want conclusions, and even useful for Russia - well, well, in Britain at one time, too, "everything was lost", as you say. Fundamental science and the defense industry were slaughtered at the state level, they abandoned political ambitions, military power - in short, almost everything.

            Nothing, for 55 years they have increased their influence, reconsidered the state of affairs, gained experience of "asymmetric" political influence and are taking off again.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 22: 13
              +1
              Quote: Anjay V.
              have gained experience of "asymmetric" political influence and are once again taking off.

              Most importantly, they killed the superpower complex in themselves. We have become a normal country with our own interests, defending and defending them. Their main plus is their allies, they bet on the winners.
              1. Anzhey V.
                April 9 2021 22: 18
                +2
                The main thing is that they killed the superpower complex in themselves.


                In our country, unfortunately, it is still an unresolved disease since the collapse of the USSR.

                Hence the unhealthy fantasies about nuclear shots with half the globe and the storming of the African coast by aircraft carriers.
              2. ecolog
                ecolog April 9 2021 23: 44
                0
                It is easy to kill a superpower complex in yourself, sitting on an island without minerals, surrounded by herbivorous Vikings. A large fleet was no longer needed, because the colonies were over. A large army, in fact, never existed, it was only collected for extreme need. Another thing is that the defense industry will die without orders, specialists will grow old, technologies will be lost. Even the production of the shooter has died.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 23: 56
                  -1
                  Quote: ecolog
                  Another thing is that the defense industry will die without orders, specialists will grow old, technologies will be lost.


  • lucul
    lucul April 9 2021 18: 15
    -3
    New UK Defense Strategy

    Hmm .... exactly the same stories were poisoned by the USSR in 1985. Restructuring, changes, modernization, reforming and other beautiful ideas - we all remember what this led to.
    Everything comes out beautifully on paper, but what will happen in fact ...
  • knn54
    knn54 April 9 2021 18: 37
    0
    To ensure cybersecurity, it is planned to create a National Cyber ​​Force of Great Britain.
    And how to ALWAYS force the Russian Federation (as before the USSR) to spend more money on defense. Including at the expense of funds for social needs due to sanctions.
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 9 2021 21: 22
      +1
      And how to ALWAYS force the Russian Federation (as before the USSR) to spend more money on defense


      You are definitely right. I think I will write another article on this topic, because The British, for example, are planning to constantly maintain military-political tension with their opponents - this will obviously wear down rivals both financially and morally.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 18: 50
    +1
    The British ground forces are turning into an analogue of the US ILC of the late 20th - early 21st centuries. They are very similar in composition, naturally without the naval and aviation components, technically they are in other types of troops.
    The Royal Navy will be seriously strengthened, which will allow it to compete in power with the Japanese and French. This is a direct response to the strengthening of the power of the Chinese Navy and their expeditionary capabilities. Japan and South Korea continue to build up their naval forces, in alliance with the Royal Navy and the United States, this is a very powerful force that is head and shoulders above the Chinese naval forces.
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski April 9 2021 21: 03
      +1
      Typical expeditionary strategy of the colonial era.
      Back to the roots, so to speak. The only question is who will allow, the rest are also not fools, and the Yankees and the Chinese have more money with resources.
    2. Anzhey V.
      April 9 2021 21: 13
      +2
      It is extremely pleasant to see that not all commentators are devoid of common sense and someone can draw interesting and logical conclusions without replacing them with jingoistic chants.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 21: 24
        +1
        This is how we read the same documents laughing If you approach them more or less objectively, there will be the same conclusions.
  • paul3390
    paul3390 April 9 2021 20: 06
    +2
    For such tasks, London has a nuclear arsenal at its disposal, which will be used against any enemy wishing to encroach on the sovereignty and the very existence of Albion.


    Well, well - what if any enemy, when infringing on sovereignty, tenderly hints that he will plant ten on each British warhead? Having questioned the very fact of the continued existence of Albion? Will they venture to rock the boat further, or will they surrender?
    1. stalki
      stalki April 9 2021 20: 26
      -2
      Will they venture to rock the boat further, or will they surrender?
      They won't even start rockin ' lol they will do it as soon as they think about it.
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 20: 36
      0
      Quote: paul3390
      that on every British warhead, ten are thrown around the island?

      Physically impossible. They now have 180 (up to 240) warheads, respectively, no one has 1800 warheads. Here is the actual data:
      As of March 1, Russia has deployed 517 ICBMs, ballistic missiles on submarines and heavy bombers, the United States has 651, Russia has 1456 warheads on these carriers, and the United States has 1357. Russia has deployed and non-deployed launchers - 767, while the United States has 800.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 April 9 2021 20: 38
        0
        You do not take into account tactical nuclear weapons, some of them will reach the Naglich people if they wish .. I’m not talking about, say, one Status-6 at the Thames estuary ..
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 20: 55
          0
          Quote: paul3390
          You do not take into account TNW

          How will you deliver it? The Russian Navy and Aerospace Forces are not able to do this.
          Quote: paul3390
          Status-6 at the Thames estuary

          Fantasy. And what will he do? In five years, it will wash all the radiation into the ocean.
    3. Anzhey V.
      April 9 2021 20: 51
      +2
      the enemy, when infringing on sovereignty, will affectionately hint that he will land ten on each British warhead?


      For this there is a total nuclear arsenal of the NATO bloc.

      In addition, none of Britain's current adversaries has the ability to neutralize its nuclear arsenal. It is certainly possible to threaten, but then the enemy will in any case face a nuclear strike on its territory.

      This is the very same nuclear deterrence.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 April 9 2021 21: 18
        -1
        But the opposite is also true, isn't it? Why then the empty threats of the Britons?

        In addition, the phrase sounds interesting, if, like, someone encroaches on sovereignty, they will immediately fry. And what will they consider this very encroachment? For example, the storming of the embassy, ​​or there is a clash at sea .. Is this a reason for a nuclear strike? That's when the mattress covers the Chinese embassy in Belgrade got rid of - isn't this a direct encroachment on sovereignty? Etc..

        As for NATO - well, there was a precedent. Falklands. Direct attack on NATO-recognized territory of its member. So what? Who fit in? So what about the total arsenal in the event of a conflict with Great Britain alone is not at all a fact. Not everyone is eager to take their interests to the very top.

        Do you really think that even the noneshnyaya RF-is not able to do Nagliya ?? What is this optimistic opinion based on? All they have is just FOUR SSBNs .. And that's all. How many of them are in real combat readiness at any given time? So that..
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 9 2021 21: 49
          +2
          there was a precedent. Falklands


          The Falklands are overseas holdings and are not part of the Alliance's area of ​​responsibility.

          However, the United States and France provided London with more than voluminous assistance with weapons, intelligence, sanctions and political pressure on Argentina.

          Why then the empty threats of the Britons?


          Excuse me, where did you see the "threats"? They do not threaten anyone, they only note that nuclear weapons are a priority and do not exclude the possibility of their use.

          Do you really think that even the noneshnyaya RF-is not able to do Nagliya ?? What is this optimistic opinion based on? All they have is just FOUR SSBNs .. And that's all. How many of them are in real combat readiness at any given time?


          In a nuclear war, we are quite capable of defeating the United States - I think so.

          Only do we need it?

          Of the four British SSBNs, at least one is on alert. Enough to work for a couple of megacities and 15-20 million people in them.
    4. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski April 9 2021 21: 00
      +2
      And what if any enemy, when infringing on sovereignty, gently hints that he will plant ten on each British warhead?
      They will laugh at this cheap bluff, call friends and start pushing on all fronts. For example, in Russia the lion's share of the population lives in 40 large cities with a population of more than half a million. Those. even the British nuclear arsenal is more than enough to destroy the Russian people. There are no psychopaths - fatalists with suicidal tendencies in the Kremlin and there never have been (remember Father Damansky), which the Britons are well aware of.
    5. Avior
      Avior April 9 2021 22: 09
      +2
      No one will believe
      If, in response to one English, the answer is ten, then this someone will be left without nuclear missiles, despite the fact that the States will have them.
  • iouris
    iouris April 9 2021 20: 31
    -5
    Downright eulogy of the power of Britain. It is immediately evident that it came out from under the keyboard of an Anglophile. There are no conclusions, but the conclusion suggests itself: what can the Russian Ivan oppose to this advanced power? But nothing. Well this is Great Britain!
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 9 2021 20: 59
      +2
      Keep your morbid fantasies to yourself, please)

      If for you the consideration of the official documents of a potential adversary is the essence of "anglophilia" - you should contact a specialist who will help improve your mental health)
  • ecolog
    ecolog April 9 2021 20: 35
    -3
    In general, if the enemy does not surrender, frightened by the beautiful ships, and the special forces blitzkrieg is not crowned with success, the war can be considered lost. After all, there is never too much special forces and it will end quickly
    Antiapus strategy in a new wrapper. The opium wars were conducted in much the same way. Maybe it’s right, let the fools Americans spend on a million-strong army, and we, the allies, will shit on everyone because of the back of our senior comrade.
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski April 9 2021 20: 55
      0
      Where the fleet cannot cope with special forces, diplomats come into work with golden suitcases.
      So even cheaper, the bought natives will gladly do any dirty work.
      The main thing here is to make money ... and with this, modern small Britain cannot say that it is very good (relative to its competitors).
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski April 9 2021 20: 50
    -2
    How difficult it is to read and perceive all this water.
    Everyone thought it was Aquarius Kiril Ryabov, but no, it turns out that he has a competitor on his website.
    Taki did not understand what the "new strategy" is, if undercover games, an attempt to play the gendarme and raking in the heat with someone else's hands are traditional crafts of the Anglo-Saxons.
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 9 2021 21: 02
      +2
      Perhaps you should read something simpler - for example, a collection of children's stories or an ABC book.
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski April 9 2021 21: 13
        -4
        there is nothing to shift from a sore head to a healthy one, your text is almost 60% spammed, and the semantic load, as such, is even less.
  • Keyser soze
    Keyser soze April 9 2021 20: 58
    +3
    Great article. It was pleasant to read.
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 9 2021 21: 15
      +3
      Thank you, Kaiser!
  • faterdom
    faterdom April 10 2021 00: 14
    0
    And I sincerely hope that the good for Britain is over forever and irrevocably.
    It began with how we fought off the Spaniards, made the currency the hardest (thanks to Newton, the same Isaac) and replaced the coins with paper, without letting others do the same.
    And that's all: they squeezed out the colonies from the aborigines and other Europeans-colonizers, supported and fanned revolutions from competitors, however, often supporting their counter-revolutions as well.
    They turned to their advantage all the wars, which they themselves often organized or provoked.
    But everything comes to an end. Even 100-year-old princes on white horses.
    1. Aleksandr21
      Aleksandr21 April 10 2021 09: 19
      0
      Quote: faterdom
      And I sincerely hope that the good for Britain is over forever and irrevocably.


      They will not be the ruler of the world (again), this is unambiguous. They have an interesting new doctrine, of course, as well as plans ... but this will not help them, given what processes are going on in Europe. those. there is a clash of civilization, and the main adversary of Great Britain will not be Russia with China, but the countries of the Arab League, radical changes are already taking place in the composition of the EU population, religion, views, values ​​are changing .. and the UK will not bypass this: migration, mixed marriages + neighbors with a completely different composition of the population ... gradually, and Great Britain will change. And leadership in the Islamic world, Britain does not threaten ... but in economics and science, not everything is so simple, if they do everything right, then for another 10-20 years they will be in 10 key countries of the world, not in the first positions of course (there there will be China, the USA, India, Germany, Japan, etc.) but in principle they can keep their current positions.
  • Old26
    Old26 April 10 2021 00: 29
    +6
    Quote: Svarog
    Whereas 5 nuclear warheads will only be enough to destroy London

    One of the R-36M, R-36M UTTH, R-36M2, RS-20 will dust 500 sq. kilometers .. What are you talking about .. This is a completely different rocket than the one that fell on Hiroshima .. here the comparisons are different ..

    • R-36M - decommissioned long ago
    • R-36M UTTH - decommissioned at least 7 years ago.
    • R-36M2 are being written off on the sly, although this is not advertised.
    • RS-20 is the contractual designation of the R-36M / R-36M UTTH / R-36M2 missile family. Therefore, it is inappropriate to mention this designation as one of the missiles of the family.

    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    No, not enough. Staryy26 has more than once made statements (very optimistic in my opinion) on a mutual nuclear strike, according to which Western civilization will live, we will not.

    It was not me who gave a mutual nuclear strike, but I basically agree with the calculations. I gave calculations about how much is necessary for the state to cease to exist as an ordered structure. But this does not mean that the entire territory will be "glazed"
    For England, these figures are (rather optimistic, but nevertheless): 26 targets and 45 warheads
    • 3 cities with a population of one million, 3 warheads each - Total 9 blocks
    The same London does not need to be destroyed to the level of a scorched desert. It is enough to destroy the control infrastructure
    • 5 large cities and industrial centers, 1 block each. Total 5 blocks
    • 3 large naval bases, 2 BB each. Total 6 blocks
    • 5 military air bases, 3 blocks each. Total 15 blocks
    • 10 other military facilities, 1 block each. Total 10 blocks
    In total - at least 26 targets and 45 blocks.
    Dear Svarog! To say that 5 nuclear blocks of the "Voevoda" are enough to destroy London may be correct, but the remaining 5 blocks will go where. Do not forget that the breeding area is limited. The same American MX could split 10 blocks into an area of ​​800 x 400 km. It is not known whether any target worthy of the governor's blocs will hit such an area. Therefore, to say that we will multiply England by zero with one or three "Voivods" is stupid
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex April 11 2021 00: 18
    0
    Now the situation is taking a different turn - Great Britain is returning to the waters of the World Ocean.

    In the capacity of whom? If as a purely auxiliary part of the US fleet, it did not leave from there. If as an independent force, then we'll take a look.

    London quite specifically defines the main theater of war of the future - it will be science

    This is not new. Science has been defining theater of operations for three hundred years.

    and the soldiers of this war are destined to be researchers, bankers, engineers and diplomats.

    Only there is a subtlety: a banker can harm an enemy state only if he is admitted to its markets. And as soon as at least one share of British financiers gives a hint of compliance with this doctrine, the access of British financiers to the markets of other countries will be EXTREMELY difficult. Up to a complete ban on their activities at the level of laws.
    The actions of diplomats are strictly limited by the framework of the diplomatic protocol, and a systematic violation of it will lead to the fact that British diplomats will spend months in their offices, and they will spend most of their time in the country of stay in the status of tourists.

    Already the title: “Global Britain ... smacks of Manilovism. Britain today has serious ambiguities even in the sense of European Britain. There is a chance not to reach globality even in a jump. Without any simplifications of the traditional influence of the British in various spheres, I would like to note that outside the European economic institutions, it cannot influence a whole range of factors that are extremely important for itself.

    Perhaps for a Russian reader, this block of British military strategy may seem extremely strange and incomprehensible - unfortunately, it just so happened that in our consciousness, the concepts of "war" and "economy" are somewhere unimaginably far from each other.

    In your? Maybe. In our country, war has never been considered separately from the economy. Even in Soviet historiography, war has always been determined by and explained by economic factors. So don't generalize. All the more false.

    The main and paramount task of the new strategy ...
    The government will be transformed ....

    The problem for many commentators is that they cannot separate the essence of the "politico-bureaucratic" text from the ritual verbiage. Perceiving at face value an eloquent infusion, designed solely for the sake of "conformity to the moment." In this case, the author apparently forgot that reforming the government is not something that is done according to a cheat sheet from some "doctrine". Even if it's called "Galactic Britain ..."

    The level of non-admission of the use of military force is decreasing - now it is seen as an adequate instrument for responding to the threat to the interests of Britain.

    That is, the situation returns to the doctrine of "the last argument of kings" or "war is a continuation ..." And what is new here? Has Britain decided to return to the Victorian era? But now she is just an island, not an empire. If the British start responding to threats to their interests with military force, they will simply be beaten. Systematically. And drive with wet rags. In advance. For the sake of not being allowed.

    Resisting threats at home and abroad. It is necessary to expand the international intelligence network, share risks and pool opportunities through collective security; using the armed forces to thwart enemy plans and contain the enemy through constant hostilities abroad.

    I didn't get it. Do the British still consider hostilities to be the use of the army, or have they already creatively rethought this matter and already see "engineers and diplomats" as soldiers? Because even the United States can no longer conduct military operations on a permanent basis. Where is Britain? If I understand correctly, this text only means that Britain will continue to be among the first to support all US military adventures.

    Resolution of international conflicts and instability. This will deprive the enemy of potential pressure points and improve international economic cooperation. It is planned to achieve this by eliminating all the driving forces of conflicts.

    An incredibly meaningless phrase. On the verge of idiocy. This is tantamount to saying: I prepare for battle, eliminating all vulnerabilities and depriving the enemy of strength. Well, yes, who would not want to. Only no one has succeeded yet. Even Achilles had a heel. And then "we will become the smartest and most cunning." Well, yes, you will. Tomorrow.
    A striking example of populism.


    Strengthening UK homeland security by addressing transnational issues - international objectives and engagement should be used as front lines to combat terrorism, organized crime, radical religious groups, cybercriminals and foreign agents.


    Class! And all the enemies of Britain will wait with tears of affection and with lowered hands, when the Britons will take away foreign agents in their Albion.

    In short, I did not expect anything revolutionary from this doctrine. In the real world, Britain is doomed to the role of the "foreign legion" of the US military. But the British have always been masters of chatting their language, inventing all sorts of mental constructions, loud phrases devoid of meaning and enthusiastically talking about anything. And here again. Unable to implement their plans in the classical way, gentlemen habitually change the rules. Completely losing sight of the fact that soon a century in the world will depend on them quite a bit.
  • paco.soto
    paco.soto April 11 2021 03: 18
    0
    Neutral opinion: I read the article - love it !!!
    Now in my feed there is a video about ankle boots English shoes.

  • Dmitry_6
    Dmitry_6 April 12 2021 11: 42
    +1
    Very correct article.
    It reflects the main thing: the completion of the transition of the leading powers to a highly professional "elite" army. What is associated with such factors:
    - a significant rise in the cost and complication of military equipment
    - significant lengthening of the terms of development and production of military equipment
    - as a result, increased requirements for personnel
    - increasing dependence of states on a limited number of research, production and financial facilities, the elimination of which by relatively small professional forces puts the enemy on the brink of defeat without the use of weapons of mass destruction.