In the UK Defence review debate in the British House of Commons on Tuesday 19^th October, and again in the Chancellor’s speech on Wednesday, there were several references to Britain’s “punching above its weight”.  Nobody has defined this term, but if it is referring to the size of forces relative to GDP or population, comparison with the USA may be a good starting point.

The USA has around five times the population and GDP of the United Kingdom.  It has 1.5 million men and women in its armed forces, or nearly ten times what the UK’s forces will be in 2014/15 in the plan announced on Tuesday.

The USA has 7600 main battle tanks compared with the UK’s 400, or 19 times as many.  It has eleven aircraft carriers equipped with actual aircraft compared with the UK’s three, soon to be one with no combat aircraft.

The USA has 96 frigates, cruisers and destroyers compared with the UK’s 23, to be reduced to 19 under the cuts (the only category of force where the UK achieves one fifth of the USA’s).  Scrapping Nimrods will means that the Navy will have no maritime aerial reconnaissance at all and thus will be entirely dependent on the USA for this vital function.

The USA has 2670 combat aircraft in its air force compared with the UK’s 200, due to be reduced to around 100 under the cuts (a factor of 26 difference).   The Royal Air Force however is due to have a small increase in its helicopter fleet to 176, compared with the USAAF’s fleet of 1160 (a factor of six and a half difference).  The USA’s Marine Corps with its 186,000 troops, 400 tanks, 170 combat aircraft, 150 helicopters and its own landing craft is alone about the size of Britain’s entire armed forces.

In what sense can Britain be said to be “punching above its weight”?

 Email this article