Californian Reacts | Britain's Shrinking Military - From Cold War Colossus to Cash-Strapped Shadow
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 06. 2024
- UK defence spending as a proportion of GDP has halved since the 1980s - leading to a decline in equipment and a drop of one in six military personnel.
- So what has happened to UK defence spending?
In 2021, the UK spent 2.2% of its Gross Domestic Product on defence, amounting to about £45.9bn. However, this number has fallen since the mid-1950s. In the financial year ending in 1956, the UK spent just under 8% of its GDP on defence and in 1980 it was 4.1%. Since 2000, the proportion has remained around the 2% mark.
In comparison, health spending as a proportion of GDP in 1956 was just under 3% and in 2020 this figure jumped to over 7%.
Defence spending has remained consistent over recent years because of the government's pledge, as a NATO member, to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence each year.
- Military expenditure compared with other countries:
The UK is only one of a handful of countries to have consistently met this NATO benchmark. The UK has the third-highest average defence spending as a fraction of GDP, behind just the US and Greece.
The UK has also maintained the NATO standard of allocating at least 20% of its defence budget on equipment. Over a quarter (28%) of the UK's defence budget was spent on equipment in 2022, according to NATO estimates. However, several types of equipment types have seen a decrease in recent years, according to data from the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
Armoured fighting vehicles, like tanks, have seen a decrease of 5% from 2016 to 2022 and artillery has seen a decrease of 2%. Fixed-wing aircraft that are in service have seen a decrease of 10%, and in-service rotary winged platforms, such as helicopters, have seen a decrease of 24% in the same time period. While British defence spending has been maintained over a substantial amount of time, personnel numbers in the armed forces have been on the decline for years. Quarterly figures from the MoD show that in 2022 there are just over 145,000 regular armed forces personnel. This represents a decrease of 14% from the figures of 169,150 10 years ago and personnel figures are set to decrease even further.
Back in November 2022, Ben Wallace told the parliament that the British Army would now be reduced to 73,000 by the middle of the decade. Latest figures show that the number of regular British Army personnel stood at 79,139.
- Rising energy costs and inflation will affect the armed forces"
The MoD was the only department on the receiving end of budget cuts at the government spending review in October 2021.
The ministry's most recent annual staff costs were just under £15bn and the ministry can expect calls, like other sectors, for larger pay increases to protect the real terms pay of members of the armed forces. Rising global energy prices are also likely to put pressure on MoD spending with recent figures showing a spend of around £600m per year on energy and fuel. Asked about the US general's private comments on Monday, the prime minister's official spokesman said the government is "ensuring our armed forces have the equipment and capability they need to meet the threats of tomorrow including through a fully funded £242bn 10-year equipment plan".
"The prime minister is clear that we have to do everything necessary to protect our people that's why the UK has the largest defence budget in Europe," the spokesman added.
Source: news.sky.com/story/what-is-th...
Additional sources:
Defense Spending by Country 2023 (World Population View) - worldpopulationreview.com/cou...
What are your thoughts on the current state of the British military? Where is it heading?
Mark Felton is a wealth of historical and military knowledge and I believe an author as well for which I have binge watched his videos. Highly suggested!
I watched a video , there was a British army official on it saying that we made all these cuts because we are allies with the USA so hopefully you will have our back 😅
Mark Felton when he presents his first fact on the percentage of GDP that is spent on defense ignores the fact that GDP is not static, GDP has increased significantly since 1991, the percentage is a NATO commitment as well, NATO members are supposed to commit at least 2% of GDP to defense, Germany in particular along with other NATO members in Europe has consistently failed to do so.
@ historyeeet!l Californian reacts
. Were ok we still have mighty Gurkhas on our side
Plus were still a nuclear country we have nuclear subs called trident 🔱. If anyone was to try invade us we would use trident,
Plus were part of NATO a 31 country alliance,
And our armed forces are still the best in the world
Good video 👍 stay safe
I haven't watched the video yet but immediately what I would say is this. Many soldiers are hired at a time of great war. When the wars are over and peace is upon our land there's no need for large amounts of hired killers. The national motto of Scotland is "Nemo me impune lacessit" which means "No one provokes me with impunity" or "F*** around and find out". England, Ireland and Wales have fierce warriors too, history proves the genetics of our people are strong and able. Even in the worst of times. We are powerful allies and fearsome enemies, there's no doubt about that.
I think the UK has the or one of the best trained armies in the world. Let down by the 🤡 of the British government.
The leftie clowns. It's always the lefties. It always was.
'Right that's it. You're in all sorts of trouble now and you can take that from all twelve of us.'
'Eleven.'
'What?'
'Eleven. Dave's on holiday this week.'
In 1989, Warsw Pact was estimated to have 3,090,000 active personnel. Now Russia has approximately 1,150,000 active personnel, a reduction of over 60%, so the reduction in military numbers are somewhat proportional and a justifiable 'peace dividend'. However, there is a baseline figure to have effective operational armed forces and UK has probably pushed beyond that point with the cuts in recent years.
I served in the BAOR for three years in Germany. We're still cutting edge, yet short of personnel and equipment. We have two additional players in NATO, however it's looking a bit tight... 😊
If you look back through History you'll see that the UK has always been well short of equipment at the start of any conflict but everyone misses a very important fact...our fighting men have very large balls and our fighting woman don't take any prisoners.
In other words what we lack in equipment we make up for it in determination.
As a Brit “that has followed the modern British military all my life” I agree with the video… to a point. It’s not taking into account a massive reason for reduction in size for both British and Russian military although it mentions it frequently and that is the end of the Cold War. We like America had bases all over the world not just In past empire and modern commonwealth but also in cooperating nations. Now a large number of those nations have requested we go or there was no longer a need to be there so it was a huge drain on resources to hold a base simply because it was there so to keep the number of personnel to run them would be insane. Equally Russia has shown its hand early in the Ukraine war having to call up reservists and retired personnel also needing Wagner who have almost emptied the gulags for boots on the ground. Yes I’m sure they have a reserve combat effective force in Russia but that will be for security and they won’t want them on front line duty equally the number of citizens is far far less since the fall of the USSR “this also effects the stockpiles of vehicles and equipment that was lost to other nations because where they was located” after that they of course saber rattled and made shows of military might but be honest when have you seen those fully bulletproof suits in combat so far? Or the next gen rifles? They have horse riding helmets cardboard and sheet metal vests and old rusty ak74’s “if not old bolt action” they have more or less ran out of smart artillery their tanks are of a 1970’s standard and most soldiers have to buy their own equipment. We also need to remember that the second most given resources nation to Ukraine after America is the uk yet we are still able to be combat effective and as the video mentions we are still involved in other things and are stationed on the Russian border training with other nations equally training in the biggest ever air exercise over the u.s. yes I agree we need to build a little more but to make out that we are falling apart at the seams is just recycling lazy journalism that misquotes MOD and ex MOD officials and makes numbers sound more dramatic wile on numbers again it’s also interesting to see how many sailors was needed to operate a 1960’s vessel and how many are needed aboard now also how long could that vessel be at sea between port stops etc because the maths speaks for itself planes boats subs tanks need less personnel to keep them operational and with advanced tech the need for a mass push across no man’s land like the Somme “or as Russia is doing today” is a thing of the past what 100 men needed to do 100 years ago 30 or so can easy stop now. anyway Iv gone on far to long but summery for me yes invest more but we are still not on our knees 🇬🇧
Its gone far beyond that, some countries police forces have members than our 'army'
@@johnchristmas7522 we have more police officers than military personnel and other than times of war I’m not sure there has ever been a time that we had a bigger military than our own police force in the modern era so as a comparison I get where you are coming from but it doesn’t really make sense
@@fubarghost13akawoz44 153,000 to defend 62million says it all really.
@@johnchristmas7522 although there are tensions at the moment we are not in direct war time you do understand that we can draft if we become in a conflict so recently de mob’ed ex service personnel can get fast passed and fighting age and health people will be able to be fast tracked equally does that number include T.A and if you are talking defensive as you say to defend the country what about the fire arms trained police? I think you have seen one to many scare stories in the media we are not at tip top of what we could have but we are no where near not being able to defend ourselves against invasion if you truly believe this just take a look at Ukraine for a moment they had the most basic military and have land borders with what was supposed to be the second most powerful military in the world we have a far more powerful military we also have major deterrents plus we have a 360 degree sea border with one of the most powerful navy’s we are also surrounded with allies “literally” we also have American military bases so if one was hit “they are considered American soil” it’s a direct attack on the u.s we are only unsafe to one attack and that would not matter how many soldiers we had as everyone on the earth is also unsafe from it N.B.C
152,000 to defend 61 million!
68 million. Unfortunately, makes it even worse 😅
The sheer size of the USA necessitates a large military to defend it. The UK is building warships at the moment and is appears to be focussed on increasing it's sea power, for there is where your main defence lies. Try and imagine how you would defend against incoming missiles etc with infantry. Nuclear power must be brought up to the point where no nation would like to attack you. Having said all that I still agree with you that your army has shrunk too much. A huge bed can becovered by a huge sheet, whereas a small bed only needs a small sheet. I hope that makes sense. Good luck with building your military.
The UK may have had their Armed forces reduced over the year, but we are regarded as one of the world best
probably the best, our goverment "danish" choosed to send our soldiers to afghanistan under british command, not american,german, frence, only british
Like UK hasn't many tanks but we don't need,. Just give one guy in every squad a javelin missile,. Then boom tank
🤣 facts I keep thinking the same thing it’s driving me insane videos saying more tanks if the Russia Ukraine war has thought us anything it’s no tanks more javelin missiles slingers and drones 😂
Yes we have a small army but we got the feared worldwude gerkas as well as the SAS,SBS
Our latest Conservative defense secretary has resigned because of cuts.
Our defence budget may have been cut but we still have Ronnie Pickering
Who?
They have cut it too much. I think most wars are fought in the air now. I think the whole of NATO was to have a large army etc if we all stick together. I could be wrong but whats the point of it otherwise. There are two more countries joining now, Ukraine and Norway i think. I believe they have their eye on this and the uk is upping its budget. History repeats itself and we dont seem to learn. This is exactly how it was in 1938/9
Currenlty and arguably , Britgain sits in 4th spot in terms of military spending in 2923, the firgures are a bit rubbery, but they are for all the other countries too. The USA spends more than any one and more than the next ten countries put together, there isnt a lot of difference between countries numbered 3 to 10 and there is reason to believe there is not that much diffrence in spending between countries 3 to 20 . So I am not postive Mark has this right. The fact is , though, that shout the difference and beleive what you want BUT the USA is too powerful for any other country on the planet.
Far Far Far to small. this is the cause of government
I think defence spending cuts over the last 30 years snuck up silently on the average person here. We didn't notice it as the money was being diverted in other things to help social infrastructure projects. This is a Europe wide occurrence, not just UK.
Infrastructure still sucks though
Underestimate us at your peril
I'm not very worried to be honest unlike other countries we are now surrounded by allies.
You should be, because Trump, love him or hate him, said what was true, that Europeans including the UK relied on America to protect them. Now Russia has invaded Ukraine, has
made people realise that Putins aim might not be just Ukraine. So they needed to arm themselves. America will have its hands full dealing with China.
I wouldn't panic too much.We were the third nuclear power(after the US ripped us and Canada off with the Manhatton project.)We're the second biggest arms manufacturer in the world.We have highly advanced military technology. And we're uninvadable. We've always kept a minimal force until the shtf.If Ukraine can counter Russian aggression, then we certainly can.
And yet we give away £13 billion year in foreign aid, which you can guarantee creates a few dozen political millionaires every year.
This video is completely wrong about the navy the Royal Navy is one of the best this guy has no knowledge about modern military power I wouldn’t brother with his videos on modern military power for example he’s talking about budget cuts but the defence budget increased in 2020 he talks about the low number of f35b we’ll ignoring the fact the navy has 48 more on order and plans to get 130 he talks about the small frigate fleet witch is bs we have basically the same number has Russia he also ignored the fact the Royal Navy has 18 new frigates under construction and in development he didn’t mention the new support ships and submarines under construction this Royal Navy is ranked one of the only blue water navy’s
The general rule of thumb for warships. You need four hulls. One on station. One working up to go on station. One in a pier side maintenance cycle. lastly, one ship will be in drydock with its guts spread across the pier for a year or two. Yet, the politicians just dont want to hear it. All too often, its make do and mend. So ships wear out faster, but are not getting replaced.
Russia is not what it was as an army and always really poor as a navy. Russia has never tried to invade the UK. Submarines are really important these days. They go where they like.
I think it's because of NATO. And euro army's and eu,. Add all the country s up and it's big enough
These days, its not even about large bits of kit like ships, planes and tanks. No one has the missile or basic ammunition stocks anymore. I don't believe the USN even has enough Standard Missiles to fully load all its ships.
"no one can seriously consider ten submarines can do the job of 29". Every politician walks away whistling loudly!
in a way they can. the capability of modern technology for our armed forces these days, is essentially why the military is shrinking. Why risk lives when you have the technology to replace them? A Type 45 destroyer can do the same job as 3 of its predecessors at once.
@@kirad2234 War is still a numbers game. The tin cans that are modern warships can be mission killed with a glancing blow. All those radars etc are very fragile. Damage those, and ship is unable to fight. If it takes six months to a year to fix a ship (presuming new radars etc are available). Few hulls means a loss is a larger percentage of a nation combat power gone. The ability to absorb losses is what the has been lost in western navies. It’s been a naval truism for a century. You need four hulls to have one on station. One is on station. One is working up to relieve the first. One will be in pierside maintenance. The last will have its guts spread over a dry dock for a year or two. The working up ship can be surged if needed. The last two will be months to years from availability.
Of course, the people in power never get that more hull is good all round. Ships last longer. Jobs and taxes been generated etc. I will stop before this turns into a political rant.
Those of us of a certain age realised that our successive naive governments were mistaken in cutting military spending. There are too many flash points countries in the world to be relatively defenceless . I thought each announcement of cuts was disgraceful. Now we are paying the price and recruitment drives for all forces are in overdrive. We do, however, have 1 million army reserves .
As a British citizen general not happy about the reduction but always so many other things the government is concerned about. Like the NHS and Schools. Another thing the video didn't consider is how much more expensive everything is. A tank or a plane now costs 50% more than in 1991.
Inflation means £1 in 1991 is worth £ 2.13 today, so I'm guessing the 50% you stated is a relative adjustment, so in terms of a £10m piece of military hardware in 1991, it costs a little over £30m today.
We should of just kept all our 80s and 90s ships and planes etc and still built our modern equipment along side it..
Like almost (except the USA)every nation, mostly in Europe, after the end of the Cold War we drastically reduced the size of the military and it's spending. Seems only recently since the Iraq Inquiry and the recent invasion of Ukraine that people are feeling the actual squeeze that's been put on spending in the past couple decades. Of course fighting in a third world country against a vastly under equipped insurgency such as Iraq and Afghanistan required much less resources than aiding and rebuilding an army for legitimate European defence, or helping to aid ukraine.
Excuse me im rambling and ive had no coffee
We only have one aircraft carrier, the prince Charles has had lots of problems and so we dont use it.
The Prince of Wales aircraft carrier has been under gone repairs because its had problems with the propellers & shaft at a cost of £20 million !! It will be ready in use again very soon !!!
So we are dooomef