British military no match for Russia, China says UK parliamentary report

The UK armed forces have received a damning appraisal from a British Parliament report. The research, which is released against the backdrop of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, makes it clear that the UK lacks a top class military and the requisite weaponry to protect itself against both Russia and China. The report concludes that “underfunding” of its modernization initiatives is the cause of the “hollowing out” of the UK defence forces. The paper highlights the operational gaps that the British forces face as a result of “retirement of key equipment without replacement, lack of adequate air and missile defence capabilities, inadequate munitions stockpiling, insufficient regular close support units, and shortage of air transport.” The shocking report from the House of Commons Defence Committee confirms what many NATO nations already know all too well: they are badly unprepared to deal with a belligerent state like Russia that has a sizable defence industry. The readiness of the UK Armed Forces for a fight of this magnitude is questioned by the Human Security Centre (HSC), a research tank that gave testimony to the committee in this regard. In April 2023, the British Parliament launched an investigation into the readiness of the army. The data demonstrates the vital programmes, including the Fleet Solid Support Shift Programme, the Type-26 frigate, and the Astute-class submarine, have been delayed. As a result, there is no clear replacement for the “retirement” or “ageing” of weapon systems. Additionally lacking Royal Marines, helicopters, and submarines, the British military’ readiness is severely hampered. Its air force has a noticeable capability gap as well. According to the assessment, the nation’s “maritime patrol and planned airborne early warning and control capabilities are thin, and kinetic ground-based air and missile defence capabilities are absent.” In other words, the Royal Air Force lacks the resources necessary for complete SEAD/DEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense/Detruction of Enemy Air Defence) operations. The committee’s investigation’s focus was on determining the threat the UK faces in the near future. The group determined that, in the foreseeable future, China and Russia will pose the greatest threat to Britain. The need for maintaining large munitions inventories is highlighted by the prolonged conflict characterised by a bombardment of artillery and missile fire. The evidence obtained cites “the importance of large, secure stockpiles of munitions and having access to an industrial base capable of surging production” as its main “lesson learned” from the conflict in Ukraine. Ironically, by equipping Ukraine, European countries and the US have weakened their forces because many of the weapons sent came from their own arsenals. Even worse, many of these nations, particularly the US, have seen deindustrialization and a reduction in manufacturing, making it difficult to refill them. In contrast, Russia has experienced little damage from sanctions due to its generally stable economy and solid fundamentals, which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) predict will continue to expand. Ten months into the conflict, its defence industry still remains the best in the world despite initial difficulties and ammunition shortages. As evidence that its military manufacture is mostly unaffected, it continues to weaken the Ukrainian armed forces by blunting their most recent counteroffensive and firing cruise missile volleys towards Kyiv on occasion. It’s interesting to note that China has also taken note of the lessons learnt during the protracted war. To maintain a protracted conflict for an extended period of time, you must have the industrial capability and a sizable stockpile of weapons. As many unmanned combat aerial vehicles as the nation’s economic and industrial capacity will support for the troops. But if there aren’t enough boots to hold the land, it won’t matter. Being able to adapt to the changing nature of the battle situation is just as crucial to winning the war as having enough troops. The HSC stressed the “critical nature of the ability to deploy a force with sufficient mass and possessing a rapid capability for force generation to accomplish goals in major conflicts.” The ability of the Russian military to bounce back from defeats is subsequently mentioned and is cautioned to “not be underestimated.” These opinions and evaluations of an adversary’s (Russia’s) military doctrine had previously come from Britain itself, namely from General Patrick Sanders, the CGS, in July of last year. Sanders had observed the Russian propensity to prioritise significant strategic successes above minor tactical setbacks while waging protracted conflicts. “Russia wages war at the strategic, not the tactical level; its depth and resilience means it can suffer any number of campaigns, battles, and engagements lost, regenerate, and still ultimately prevail,” he said. The statement that “uncrewed systems will be central in future conflicts” is also accurate in light of the situation in Ukraine. Russian Lancet-3 and Geranium-2 kamikaze drones have taken centre stage in long-range tactical combat strikes. Kamikaze drones make it less necessary to rely on flimsy and extensive supply routes, and they make it logistically much simpler to transport weapons such as tube rockets and bigger cannons. Although the latter has advantages, Lancet-3 enabled Russia destroy 45 percent of the Western artillery supplied by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and became the cornerstone of counter-battery (anti-artillery) fire. Gerans, meantime, attacked a number of dozen civilian-military targets in Kiev by destroying command posts and power plants. The Suppression of Enemy Air Defense/Destruction of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD/DEAD) was then led by them. The drones tricked a number of Ukrainian radars with Western and Soviet roots into targeting it, which either resulted in their destruction or increased ammo supplies. Finally, it disproves the notion that the UK is a Tier One force due to its deficiencies in combat aircraft, air transport, and delays in the construction and procurement of warships and submarines. Read all the Latest News , Trending News ,  Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.