Unlock the Power of Digital Signature Legality for Procurement in United Kingdom

How to eSign a document: digital signature legality for Procurement in United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is no longer seen as a Tier  One fighting force- so said a senior US general   in a private conversation with British defense  secretary, Ben Wallace. Upon the news breaking,   the British public was outraged at the US-  until defense analysts began to appear on   talk shows to explain that the assessment was in  fact, correct. ing to a British analyst,   the UK military was unable to protect its home  islands, let alone help defend its allies. How in the world did one of the world's most  premier fighting forces get to a state where it   couldn't even defend its own homeland, and what  would the UK do in case of a third global war? While the UK military may be in a state of serious  decline, the British government is at least much   more forward thinking than most of its European  neighbors. Realizing that the war in Ukraine   presented Europe with two choices: support  Ukraine in fighting Russia in Ukraine today,   or possibly fight Russia in central Europe later,  the UK opted for the former and opened up its   armories to the Ukrainian military. Despite its  military being in seriously short supply of air   defense missiles and anti-tank weapons, the UK  nonetheless started shipping them to Ukraine   about as fast as it could load them on ships.  Meanwhile, countries such as France, Germany,   Spain, and Portugal have all been reluctant to  provide large amounts of equipment of their own,   stating that they need to be prepared  to defend themselves in the future-   and this begs the question of, from what? With  Russia struggling to hold on to east Ukraine,   it's incredibly unlikely they'll be  marching T-72s into Madrid anytime soon. But were the UK to find itself needing to fight  Russia head on, the end result is very much in   question given the atrocious state of the modern  British military. How did an elite fighting force,   America's most capable Cold War partner, turn into  what allied soldiers in the middle east would call   'the borrowers', for their propensity to never  have all the kit they needed for a mission? Like most European powers, the UK fell  prey to the Cold War peace dividend.   With the fall of the Soviet Union, Europe  assumed that the new Russia would renounce   its historical ambitions for empire,  beat all their AK-47s into plowshares,   and resolve all future conflicts with tactical  hugs. Defense budgets dropped significantly,   and research and development, as well as  procurement programs, all but atrophied.   Spending money on defense became a rude  conversational topic, and political suicide   for any politician to even broach. War was best  left to the neanderthal Americans, Europe had   established an impenetrable utopia defended almost  entirely by good vibes no weapon could pierce. On the one hand, it's hard to judge Europe for  wanting to forget the absolute pants-browning   terror of the Cold War taking place  in their own backyard. Americans were   always wary of World War III to the point of  every other family building a fallout shelter,   but Europeans had to worry about the horror of  either a nuclear or conventional war playing   out in their very living rooms. Europe was  exhausted of war, hard to blame the continent   for wanting to reinvest massive- and arguably  non-sustainable- defense budgets on other things. But getting to a point where Britain's own  politicans have said that the country only   has enough ammunition for a few days of fighting  is downright criminal. And this is only the tip of   the iceberg, because also by their own admission  the UK would be wholly incapable of defending   itself from the type of air attacks taking place  in Ukraine, and if the nation wanted to field a   single division of 30,000 troops, it would take  between five to ten years to equip them with   sufficient tanks, helicopters, and artillery.  Of the tanks and infantry fighting vehicles it   does have, most are between three to six decades  old and have no replacement in the pipeline. And   if the UK was called upon to support its NATO  partners, 30% of its high readiness forces are   reservists who could never make NATO timelines  for deployment, undermining the entire alliance. The first signs of trouble came with the British  commitment to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,   which many blame the US for dragging the UK into  but technically is just payback for previously   dragging the US into a scheme to protect  British oil interests in Iran- and we all   know how that's played out so everyone's  even Stevens as far as we're concerned. After the end of the Cold War, the British  military began to ramp down and prepare for   low intensity operations. However, Iraq and  Afghanistan proved to be higher intensity   conflicts than anticipated, and a military that  had been put on course for a low intensity fight   was suddenly thrust into a conflict it wasn't  fully prepared for. With operations in both   countries though, the UK quickly discovered it  simply did not have the resources to fight in   two theaters simultaneously- by June 2010 the cost  to the UK for both wars had risen to $31 billion,   and this in the wake of the 2008 global financial  crisis. Even as the price tag kept increasing,   British government was discussing how  to further reduce military spending,   prompted by a new government which had  inherited a budget deficit of about 12% of GDP. As Prime Minister Cameron's government came  into power, they initiated an austerity plan   to fix UK's finances. This made it impossible to  realign and refocus British military priorities,   and complicated resolving a 38 billion pound  overhang in the military equipment budget alone.   The military equipment wish list was heavily  frowned upon and thought exorbitant given that   the military itself had shrunk significantly,  from 220,000 in 1998 to about 102,000   by 2010. Cameron's government unleashed  the Strategic Defense and Security Review,   which was in effect a severe cost-cutting plan  to gut the UK military. Under its guidance,   the British army shrank from 102,000 to 82,000-  a 20% drop- and had 40% of its Challenger 2   tank fleet scrapped. Self-propelled artillery,  much more expensive to equip and maintain than   towed artillery, also got the axe, with  Britain scrapping 35% of its inventory. Another victim was the Royal Navy's HMS  Ark Royal, decommissioned in April 2011,   which eliminated its entire naval air  fleet arm. Its 72 Harriers were sold to   the US Marine Corps for the bargain price of  $180 million- a hell of a deal considering   at the time of their acquisition that Harrier  fleet would've cost the UK around $2 billion. With no carrier or maritime patrol capability  of its own, Britain was forced to rely on its   allies when it intervened in the first Libyan  civil war. Operation Ellamy was an attempt to   prove that the UK was still a relevant European  power, but it came at a severe cost as it's   military's stockpile of precision weapons was  seriously depleted- and to this day they have   not been fully replaced. Despite this, the  British military continued to experience   cuts. Military leadership began to grow quite  vocal with their discontent, appearing on prime   time news shows to voice concern about the  readiness of the UK military. In response,   they were promised a 1 percent increase in  equipment purchases from 2015 to 2020. The   government also made plans to increase total  defense spending by 5 percent between 2020 and   2021, and canceled a round of equipment cuts  to Britain's tank and artillery fleets. There   were also plans to bring back Britain's  carrier capabilities to the Royal Navy. And then Brexit happened, hurling  the British economy into turmoil.   Following hot on its heels, the global  Covid pandemic did its best to further   ruin Britain's military reinvestment plans by  dragging the global economy into the ditch. But then new Prime Minister Boris Johnson  announced the largest investment in the   Ministry of Defense since the Cold War- a  four year funding deal that would add $21.9   billion to the military's budget and would be  geared at rearmament and replenishment. Despite   this though, Britain was still planning  significant cuts to its standing forces,   specifically in its army and  its fleet of armored vehicles. Then barely a year later, Russia decided  to invade Ukraine and Europe was shocked   to discover that Russians had opted to resolve  their problems with guns and artillery instead   of the expected hugs. The economic disruption  was global, and put even more pressure on the   UK military budget. Nonetheless, the UK has  stepped up to the plate with $2.8 billion   in military aid, over 200 armored vehicles,  and 10,000 rounds of artillery ammunition. The real problem though is that the government  currently has no means of backfilling everything   that's been sent to Ukraine, prompting at  least one MP to comment that the military   could only fight for five days, and not  defend the home islands from invasion. So how in the world would Britain  aid its allies in a third world war? For decades after the Cold War, Britain figured  that it's role in any future conflict would   be largely in the air and at sea, prompting  its biggest budget cuts to fall squarely on   the army. Its fleet of Challenger 2 main  battle tanks has shrunk to 213 vehicles,   but that fleet is facing even more cuts  down to just 148 Challenger 3s by 2030.   But this won't be a new tank acquisition, but  merely an upgrade program of its Challenger 2-   so despite some increased capability, the  overall program is a net loss for British   ground forces. Given typicaly readiness rates  of around 75%, by 2030 Britain may have just   over 100 tanks ready for war at any given  time. At even just half the loss rates of   those experienced in Ukraine, Britain would be  out of tanks within a month or two of fighting. Its 721 infantry fighting vehicles are facing the  prospect of similar cuts as the army transitions   from the Warrior IFV to the Ajax IFV. It plans  to acquire 589 Ajaxes by 2029, and it's almost   certain that the total fleet will not return  to even the 721 Warriors currently in service. The nation has a pathetic artillery force mostly  made up of 126 105mm howitzers. Significant   reductions to its self-propelled guns has shrunk  its force to just 89 155mm AS-90s, with 32 of   these transferred to Ukraine. The transfers are  expected to be replaced by the swedish built BAE   Archer, which trades armor for mobility, and  the UK already has 14 in service. The Archer   is a stop-gap purchase though as the army figures  out what vehicle will ultimately replace its AS-90   fleet. Its rocket artillery forces number  at just 44, and are in the process of being   upgraded to fire the American GMLRS extended  range and Precision Strike Missile by 2025. To support its ground forces, the British Army has  44 attack helicopters, with 2 of these being an   upgraded Apache variant, the AH-64E. This fleet is  actually expected to grow however, with a total of   50 new helicopters on order to replace its aging  fleet of license-built Apaches procured in 2004. The once legendary Royal Navy has  suffered significant cuts as well. At sea,   Britain operates 4 ballistic missile  submarines as part of its nuclear triad,   as well as 6 nuclear attack submarines.  The old Trafalgar class is being retired,   with the HMS Triumph slated to be  decommissioned soon as it's replaced   with the new Astute class. Britain has plans to  purchase 7 of these nuclear powered submarines,   but as focus shifts to the Indo-Pacific and  a war with China, more purchases are under   consideration. However, given how long it  takes to build ships and subs, it's likely   already too late for any future purchases  to do anything but replace combat losses. In 2017, the HMS Queen Elizabeth was comissioned,  marking a triumphant return of the Royal Navy's   aviation arm to the world's oceans. Now the  UK operates two of the Queen Elizabeth class   aircraft carriers, with each carrying a maximum  of 36 F-35s along with support rotary aviation.   The largest vessels ever built for the Royal  Navy, they pale in comparison with the 75 to 90   combat jets that a US supercarrier can field,  and which China eventually hopes to match,   but are a significant move back to becoming a  significant naval power. The F-35 also gives   the UK an outsized punch against any potential  adversary- namely China or Russia- though the   nation has been heavily criticized by the  US after one of its former F-35 pilots was   discovered to have been contracted as  a 'consultant' by the Chinese military. Its carriers are supported by 6 Type 45  destroyers, which are primarily equipped for   an air defense role to protect friendly ships  from enemy aircraft and missiles. These are   supplemented by 11 Type 23 frigates, which while  being guided missile frigates, lack significant   punching power against surface vessels. Instead,  the Type 23 are optimized for anti-submarine   warfare, leaving the anti-ship role largely up  to its attack submarines or aircraft carriers. The Royal Air Force meanwhile finds itself in  dire straits. Its air fleet has shrunk to just   137 Eurofighter Typhoons and 29 F-35s, which  are jointly operated by its Fleet Air Arm. This   leaves the Royal Air Force with basically just the  Typhoon, and those are already being scrapped with   the fleet shrinking by the year. The RAF does have  plans to procure between 60 to 80 total F-35s,   though it'll be sharing about half of these  with the navy. The Tempest, now in development,   is expected to make up the bulk of the Royal Air  Force by replacing the current fleet of Typhoons,   but given the history of British arms procurement,  the Royal Air Force's outlook is grim as it   attempts to defend British interests with a fleet  of less than 200 combat aircraft. To make matters   worse, the RAF has no operational advanced early  warning and control aircraft, with an order for   five being reduced to just three and expected  to be delivered in 2024. It does still maintain   9 Posiedon anti-submarine and anti-ship aircraft  however, as would be expected given its duty to   defend the UK-Greenland-Iceland line against  Russian ships and submarines in case of war. So how would the UK fight a third world  war with such an anmenic military? Britain's role in a major future conflict  would be relegated to a support role,   a serious demotion from its frontline role  in both World Wars. In a European conflict,   Britain's biggest contribution to NATO would  be its role as an unsinkable aircraft carrier   for American long range strike aircraft. With no  dedicated bombers of its own, and such a small   air fleet of which only about half would ever  realistically be operational at any one time,   British fighters would be best used to ensure  the skies over and around the British isles   remain safe for allied aircraft- specially  for big American bombers like the B-52. Its navy's greatest contribution would be in  securing the all-important UK-Greenland-Iceland   line, a picket line stretching across the  North Atlantic. Russian vessels would seek   to cross this picket in order to attack American  shipping in the Atlantic, though given the state   of the Russian navy today, only its submarine  forces would pose any threat. These Britain is   well suited to tracking and destroying given  its fleet of Poseidon aircraft and frigates. Britain would struggle to provide significant  firepower for a land task force, and its forces   would likely be relegated to a reserve force,  to be held back and used in case of enemy   breakthrough. As it would take weeks for Britain  to fully meet its NATO commitments, its army would   be important in relieving combat exhausted  or depleted NATO forces from other nations.   But lacking significant firepower, Britain's  days as a frontline force are well in the past.  As the next major global conflict is likely to  occur in the the Pacific against an increasingly   belligerent China, Britain would be even  more hard pressed to seriously support its   American and Australian allies. However, a  2023 UK-Japan defense agreement has greatly   increased ties between the two nations, and  allows for the deployment of their militaries   within each other's nations. While small, a UK  air or ground commitment in Japan would still   be significant given its modern capabilities-  and in a war over Taiwan, one can never have   enough combat jets or ground-based air  defenses protecting Japanese air fields. Its attack submarines could pose a significant  headache for China, given their extreme stealth   and lethality against a People's Liberation Army  Navy that is still lagging significantly behind   in anti-submarine warfare. Here Britain's small  undersea forces would have an outsized effect   in helping the US and allies shut down Chinese  shipping around Taiwan- though the Strait itself   is too shallow for safe operation of attack  submarines. Of its two aircraft carriers,   it's likely only one would be operational at any  one time, but an additional, if smaller, carrier   in the Pacific would be a significant boost to US  efforts to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Its days as a global military power are  firmly behind it, and its military is in   a state of crisis- but Britain can still provide  significant assistance to any allied effort in the   next major war. In the end, it's exactly these  allies that are Britain's greatest strength,   though the nation must ask itself if it  hasn't been overly reliant on both its   nuclear arsenal and the power of its  allies to guarantee its own security. Now go watch France's World War III  Plan, or click this other video instead!