Britain’s military is world-class, but not built for a war on multiple fronts

Russian ships skirted our shores with submarine incursions whilst eyes were drawn to the conflict in the Middle East, which itself remains a tinderbox.

The conflict in Ukraine grinds on, Russia has now spent more time fighting Ukraine than the Soviet Union was at war with Nazi Germany.

Any of these disparate clashes and incursions could drag Britain into a conflict, if that happened are we ready for it? Lord George Robertson, former Nato secretary-general and author of the government’s strategic defence review (SDR), does not believe so, stating recently that "We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack. We are not safe... Britain's national security and safety is in peril."

I believe we have highly skilled armed forces who are prepared for conflict, enabling us to deploy a highly capable, precisely targeted force as part of a NATO coalition.

What we cannot do is sustain a large-scale, war across multiple fronts. We have reduced our armed services considerably, and those who remain are world-class. That is a strategic choice, but one that needs to be made consciously, not by default.

Parts of government have recognised that investing in new types of weapons like drones and artificial intelligence is important, as the conflict in Ukraine has shown.

However, the UK is still tied to some long-term defence investments, such as submarines, aircraft carriers, armoured vehicles and jets, which consume much of the budget. What remains for genuine innovation is a thin layer of icing on a very expensive cake.

Ukraine is the case study everyone cites, but it deserves more careful reading. Yes, it has shown that pace of technological evolution matters enormously. But it has also revealed something uncomfortable: when drone capability becomes commoditised, you end up in a race to the bottom on price and quality.

Ukraine needs low cost and high capability solutions. That is exactly the tension the UK must resolve, and at present, we sit uncomfortably between the two.

Britain's role in NATO remains one of genuine strength. Our command structures, our trained personnel, our interoperability, these are real assets. But if the US continues to reorient away from Europe, the UK and its European allies will need to step up meaningfully. Rhetoric without resource is not leadership.

On emerging technology, the reality of AI in defence is not the sci-fi vision of autonomous robot killing machines that some defence tech investors would have you believe.

From our perspective in the UK, AI means faster data processing, better analysis, and sharper decision-support for humans– be they soldiers in the field or operators in a base. That is less dramatic, but it is transformative and is already happening.

Perhaps the sharpest strategic question is this: can Britain sustain a force capable of protecting Eastern Europe, guarding the Northern Straits, securing critical national infrastructure and supporting partners in the Gulf simultaneously? The honest answer is no.

Neither can most nations. But the difference is that Britain still wants to be everywhere. At some point, we must decide what kind of power we are and configure ourselves accordingly.

_

Matthew Albans, CTO of Roke, a defence and national security technology company

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk