The U.K. general staff has a better idea of what we’re facing than the public does. Much of their focus right now is on diversifying supply chains, building industrial capacity and working with small/medium businesses. Sir Rolly Walker’s recent speech made it sound like a conversation with the public about resilience is imminent rather than something needed.
No matter what, the priorities will remain Dreadnaught and the nuclear deterrent, then AUKUS, then Tempest.
The current lack of air defense is a deliberate choice. The U.K. is Ukraine’s closest ally and so there is a huge partnership on drones, AI and EW technologies. It makes no sense to stockpile drone interceptors when they can be shipped straight to Ukraine. They’re worthless every 3 months anyway because the tech changes that fast. There is no good solution for ballistic missiles. It would be pointless to join the bidding war for a tiny number of Patriots and a European solution just isn’t ready yet.
This is an excellent article and in my opinion really gets it. It's good to see the argument made that resilience is crucial. In my view it implicitly recognises that spending billions to meet an arbitrary defence spending target to appease a rogue US President is not necessarily going to keep the UK safe from attack.
For decades, governments prepared for wars by investing in tanks, jets, destroyers and missiles. It seems that drones have changed everything. As you rightly note, they are cheap, easy and quick to produce. A few cheap drones can easily destroy an expensive tank or a fighter jet. Tanks and jets become less important (and sometimes useless) in the battlefield. It looks like the whole military strategy needs to be revised.
The U.K. general staff has a better idea of what we’re facing than the public does. Much of their focus right now is on diversifying supply chains, building industrial capacity and working with small/medium businesses. Sir Rolly Walker’s recent speech made it sound like a conversation with the public about resilience is imminent rather than something needed.
No matter what, the priorities will remain Dreadnaught and the nuclear deterrent, then AUKUS, then Tempest.
The current lack of air defense is a deliberate choice. The U.K. is Ukraine’s closest ally and so there is a huge partnership on drones, AI and EW technologies. It makes no sense to stockpile drone interceptors when they can be shipped straight to Ukraine. They’re worthless every 3 months anyway because the tech changes that fast. There is no good solution for ballistic missiles. It would be pointless to join the bidding war for a tiny number of Patriots and a European solution just isn’t ready yet.
This is an excellent article and in my opinion really gets it. It's good to see the argument made that resilience is crucial. In my view it implicitly recognises that spending billions to meet an arbitrary defence spending target to appease a rogue US President is not necessarily going to keep the UK safe from attack.
For decades, governments prepared for wars by investing in tanks, jets, destroyers and missiles. It seems that drones have changed everything. As you rightly note, they are cheap, easy and quick to produce. A few cheap drones can easily destroy an expensive tank or a fighter jet. Tanks and jets become less important (and sometimes useless) in the battlefield. It looks like the whole military strategy needs to be revised.