The British army is adapting to a global role but is losing its ability to contribute more than a token force to a conventional campaign against a peer enemy.
It's a dilemma for General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, the head of the British Army:
“We have taken the lessons of how to create local indigenous forces and to harness them with 21st century Western technology. We applied it very successfully against the caliphate, and we did so almost without a single combat fatality.
“This form of remote warfare has almost become our house style.” ...
His task now is to undertake the Herculean task of restructuring the Army in such a way that it retains the ability to conduct the type of successful military campaign that was undertaken against Isil while at the same time providing it with the ability to fight hi-tech wars of the future.
The hi-tech wars are the problem given the British focus on being able to support "remote warfare" through local allies around the globe, as noted when I read about Britain's new Vanguard Strike Companies:
It sounds like these units are the means of calling down the lightning bolts from Britain's carrier-centric fleet and possibly land-based air power to support a Thin Red Line ashore in support of allies.
As I note in the last link in the quote above, if the British run into significant heavy forces their "fires through locals" strategy will falter and may require heavy forces of its own. Which will be small under Britain's strategic outlook.
Still, the British think they can contribute a division-sized force to fight alongside America, which may be enough to leverage the major source of well-supported allied heavy forces. Although Carleton-Smith worries that the British won't have the technology to fully integrate with the American Army.
