By now, no one with a pulse can be unaware that Britain’s military defences are in a bad way. Underfunded by successive governments over decades, there appears to be very little that our armed forces can accomplish on their own, and the current administration seems to be either unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
The last few days brought a number of other defence-oriented issues to public attention and added to our woes. First, and most important of these, was the Mail on Sunday’s revelation that the ill-managed and troubled Ajax armoured cavalry vehicle programme has hit yet another glitch.
As a reminder, Ajax is the much-delayed replacement vehicle for the British army’s ancient and obsolete range of reconnaissance vehicles, which equipped much of the Royal Armoured Corps.
Its development has been plagued with problems involving noise and vibration, leading to injuries to crews and its withdrawal from training.
Now, according to the Mail, we can add toxic carbon monoxide fumes to the litany of dangers. So, in addition to being too big, too expensive, too noisy, and too late, we can add too poisonous. What a disaster! We need to consider the morality of where we now find ourselves.
Can we ask our young men and women, who we put in harm’s way, to go to war in a vehicle which can be permanently harmful to their health and well-being, even before they meet the enemy?
I don’t think we can, and that’s before we consider the inevitable future medical negligence claims. It looks like its problems can’t be fixed, so we need to pull the plug on the programme forthwith.
Next, I read elsewhere the latest result of the recurring polls on whether Britain’s youth would fight for their country should war come to our doorstep.
A survey of 2,000 16 – 29-year-olds found that 50 per cent of young people said they would never take up arms. Fair enough, but all too predictable.
As I have written before, it’s one thing to think about this in the abstract while sitting in the pub with your friends, but quite another if your granny’s house has just been flattened by a cruise missile or family and friends killed or injured by a drone. That might change your mind quite quickly.
Plus, young people may not have a choice, or not much of a choice, if push comes to shove. In any future war of national survival, conscription is almost inevitable, and although in our relatively free and liberal democracy an element of personal freedom to refuse will likely remain, personally, I would favour 18 months in uniform over 18 months in Strangeways or Barlinnie. You pay your money, and you take your choice.
Britain is operating on suicidal software. Pray the drone misses your granny's house - Lt Col Stuart Crawford | Getty Images
And finally, some news from Ukraine. As we are all aware, our troops have been training Ukrainian troops for some time now, both in the UK and Ukraine, and it has been much welcomed in Kyiv.
However, the point is now being made that Ukrainian troops returning home to fight are having to be “retrained in country”.
The Ukrainians were very happy to get troops who were disciplined and operated their weapons safely, but the tactics they had been taught were obsolete.
Drones, loitering munitions, and massed artillery have made, in the opinion of the Ukrainians, the traditional British army fire and manoeuvre attack tactics prohibitively costly.
And yet a recent social media puff piece from the MoD demonstrates that this remains standard doctrine in British units.
Our understanding of manoeuvre warfare at all levels is predicated on air supremacy, even if limited in space and time. Without it – as we are witnessing in Ukraine - it’s a different ball game.
I’m not sure the British army is sufficiently “agile” to take this on board quickly. Senior leaders are too old, and their basic outlook and experience are based on their time as a subaltern.
On the other hand, we cannot safely assume that our next war will replicate Ukraine - it will almost definitely not. But I do think now that perhaps the time has come when the Ukrainians should be training us, not vice versa.
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter