Just how great is the threat ?

[Finningley Boy]

A gross dereliction of duty: How Coalition defence cuts have left Britain terrifyingly vulnerable | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2206860/A-gross-dereliction-duty-How-Coalition-defence-cuts-left-Britain-terrifyingly-vulnerable.html)

This just in from the Daily Mail, if the concerns are as serious as claimed, just what is it that the country and the Government are missing? After all, we can be sure that any future Labour government or perhaps worse still, Labour/Liberal coalition of any description, will hardly be likely to reverse the trend.

FB:confused:

[pr00ne]

What threat? Threatened by whom? To achieve what?

[SOSL]

Typical Maily Dale!!

[Finningley Boy]

I take you both read and knowledgeably dismissed the observations of Mr Heffer then!?

FB

[orca]

Interesting angle that the BAE system order book has suffered as a result of all this - vice the opposing view that it caused a lot of it.

[Shack37]

I take you both read and knowledgeably dismissed the observations of Mr
Heffer then!?



FB, I think the answer to your question is no. Both replies were one liners, one of which included questions which were covered in the article. OK, it was the Daily Mail but from just the MPA viewpoint, this has all been mentioned by professionals in the Military Aircrew thread.

[Courtney Mil]

No need to worry. If the threat was that serious, they'd need to recall all we old buggers from PPRuNe to go and sort it all out. As they haven't yet it's safe to assume all is well.

[Courtney Mil]

..oh, and they'd buy back all the Harriers to get the maffia involved. Where's WEBF, etc?

[NutLoose]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/21/article-2206860-0E719B2300000578-358_634x286.jpg

As you know tranche 32 of the redundancies has just been completed and I have gathered all of you that have survived the final cut here to let you know that myself and the country are proud of you all.

[Pontius Navigator]

Classic renta crowd. Big bloke, row 5 on left, mind in neutral. Giant, row 5, looking down, some private joke. Dark guy to the the right, same joke.

Guy by green beret, RAF officer? looking at Dave's wig or something above him.

Guy over Dave's right shoulder, yeah what.

Gal immediately behind Dave's head, catching up on some sleep.

Typo, not paying attention :)

[Melchett01]

What threat? Threatened by whom? To achieve what?

The threat is precisely from that sort of head in the sand la la la attitude displayed by politicians and bean counters who don't want to pay for defence, labouring under the misapprehension that because the barbarians are not physically charging at the gates, then everything is just fine.

[Finningley Boy]

There is one thing that I am mindful of here and that is the book The Guilty Men, co-written by none other than the late Michael Foot. The Michael Foot I was presented with as I started taking an interest in current affairs, was a radical, CND badge wearing, bomb banning lefty who had, seemingly, no appreciation of any kind of military threat from the U.S.S.R. and the Warsaw Pact. However, the book, the Guilty Men, was written during the 1930s and pointed the finger at those politicians of the day whom Foot and co-authors accused of doing little or nothing to prepare the country militarily to oppose the threat from Nazi Germany and this long before that threat could, without hindsight, be reasonably identified. As it was, the country did have a number of rearmament programmes on and off through the later half of the decade, which proved to be too little in any case.

But to get to the point, had Foot been our first Labour Prime Minister in the 1920s, would he have maintained any kind of credible standing military capability? would he have been likely to accept the case made by Lord Trenchard to retain an independent air force? I can't see it myself. From what start position in the 1930s could the government begin rearming? had, for instance, a more left leaning pacifist government have preceded the situation?

Sorry to be so long winded here, but it strikes me that the left have a sudden martial take when the threat is from an identifiable right wing element. But fail to appreciate any such threat could come from anyone else.

Just one more example, George Galloway says he supported the military action to retake the Falklands, on the principal grounds that it was a rightwing junta. He refuses to accept that we are in the same position with any kind of threatening posture from the current Argentinian Administration and regards any kind of assertive manner on the part of the British to be small minded, arrogant and imperialist. Just how do people like George Galloway explain away their subjective mind set on such matters. But it proves the point above about the left and their openly selective concerns about defence concerns.

FB:)

[Shack37]

Guy immediately behind Dave's head, catching up on some sleep.


PN, could even be a Gal grabbing a power nap. Or maybe I should visit Specsavers.:O

[bakseetblatherer]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/21/article-2206860-002FDA9D000004B0-93_634x431.jpg
Ruling the waves? The Royal Navy's 13 Type 23 Frigates (pictured) are considered insufficient for Britain's global obligations
Well any credibility is lost very fast... :ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

Melchett, head in sand maybe, but what threat?

I would suggest that the only threat to the UK now and in the unforeseeable future is to the Government's political aspirations. If we had no deterrent we would not need MPA to protect them. If we didn't try and project military power we would not need aircraft carriers.

If we don't intend to have a stand up and fight war we don't need main battle tanks. I could go on.

The countries that have aspirations of power projection are very few. America with a global capability. Russia with a growing capability but by no means global, and who else?

China? Could the UK have any hope of ever countering any Chinese expansion?

Global commerce? We have difficulty countering a couple of skiffs let alone a serious naval capability and no interest in putting boots on the ground.

Oil? SASLess has a solution there.

Iran? Exactly what can the UK do, even in cooperation with other countries.

What threat? Threatened by whom? To achieve what?

That is the nub. We simply do not have the money to support any credible force that could actually achieve something against an unidentified threat. As Sir Michael said, we don't know what the next conflict will entail. (Or words to that effect).

We must tailor our political aspirations to what is possible not what we would like.

[FODPlod]

A few of the many potential threat scenarios posited by the UKNDA here in red font:Disarmament & Consequences ~ Can Britain Remain Aloof? (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uknda.org%2FFile%2FUKNDA%2520Disarmamen t%2520%26%2520Consequences%2520Report.pdf&ei=3vVeUMykNOOL0AWvlYFY&usg=AFQjCNFwrTbIIsm3FAR_DDC60C1hmaDidw&sig2=jnZyklZ9w6_pow8gYCwtQQ&cad=rja)
Also see:A National Debate on Defence ~ A Dire Necessity (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uknda.org%2FFile%2FFormal%2520Documents %2FUKNDA%2520A%2520National%2520Debate%2520on%2520Defence%25 20Report.pdf&ei=oPZeUOGEOobN0QXz_YGICg&usg=AFQjCNFTOFpQU5tEXi2a1IejIgFDsnFmZg&sig2=9LLPXFtlwK02TtU_0Zqlpg)

[glad rag]

Wow, Brian like WOW? :ugh:

[glad rag]

I think the biggest threat to the UK is internal, and I don't mean slim boy Alex either....but of course it's VERY difficult to quantify that in PCUK today...

however...'Foreign Jihadists are flocking to Syria' - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=20632)

final sentence
"The worry is that British Jihadists could return from Syria to wreak mindless havoc on the streets of Britain's cities."

[Pontius Navigator]

{quote] 1. a confrontation with President Putin’s Russia;

2. a widespread humanitarian crisis in sub-Saharan Africa;

3. a piracy incident;

4. crises in the Middle East;

5. a conflict between India and Pakistan;

6. a confrontation with China;

7. the Falklands;

8. and a more global scenario set in 2025, with European
forces yet further reduced and an ambivalent America.[/quote]

I grant that #1 may be valid but to what extent should the British armed forces be built to maintain a credible deterrent with our European allies?

#2 where does defence diplomacy fit with a humanitarian crisis?

#3 only limited resources have been applied to this long standing issue which seems to have responded to increased military activity. What more is required?

#4 yes a certainty, but what level of force could we afford to bring to the party? After over 20 years involvement in the ME do we have an appetite for another 20?

#5 Two nuclear powers facing up to each other. What could we bring to the party?

#6 China; issue yet, British military? You must be joking. The old SEATO boundary at 105 East probably still holds.

#7 yes.

#8 So we rearm to replace America?

I haven't read beyond the executive summary but I think my point - politicians egos and money remain the issues.

[sitigeltfel]

Defence spending is like an insurance policy. You hope you never have to call it down, but if you do, you make sure you have adequate cover and have kept up the payments.

Successive governments have been skimping on this, and history shows what happens.

[Melchett01]

PN,

Without getting in to the realms of the classified -I'm sure your SIntO / SqIntO can elaborate if asked, a pretty good pointer as to where we might be going in the coming years can be found in the DCDC publications Global Strategic Trends out to 2040 and Future Character of Conflict:

Ministry of Defence | MicroSite | Development Concepts Doctrine Centre | Our Publications | Strategic Trends Programme (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DCDC/OurPublications/StrategicTrends+Programme/)

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A05C6EB5-5E8F-4115-8CD6-7DCA3D5BA5C6/0/FCOCReadactedFinalWeb.pdf

Alternatively, for a more hear and now assessment of why we might need to spend some cash can be found in the current National Security Strategy (for what it's worth post-Arab Spring!)
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | National Security Strategy published (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/NationalSecurityStrategyPublished.htm)

[Pontius Navigator]

Melchett, I was once but now longer. I still hold that the World has moved on and we no longer have the money to afford the resources to meet the UKNDA's list of threats.

Other countries manage quite nicely without the latest must have ego boosters; that is my point.

[Heathrow Harry]

The definition of threat levesl depnds on who you ask -

the old advice to "never ask a barber if you need a haircut" applies

Each service adds its own threats which funnily all seem to require their branch to be refitted, the FO adds a load as they don't want anyone coming along in 25 years and spiling their retirement with a "Guilty Men" scenario

the Treasury can't see any threats and therefore we don't need to spend anything etc etc

personally I think we in the UK are faced with fewer serious threats than at any time in my lifetime - most of the ones that people list are either fights far away we decided to pick or fights (such as India-Pakistan) we don't need to get involved in

We still need armed forces but they have to be configuired for max flexibility - eg more helicopters and transports and a lot of cheapish strike fighters, more amphib. vessels rather than the big carriers, a decent infantry transport vehicle for once. More infantry and less tanks

[Pontius Navigator]

HH :D

To your list I would add proper green water vessels to patrol the UK waters. It is enlightening to see the numbers of patrol vessels our neighbours have. There is usually on Madeira. We saw countless ones in Brest etc etc.

[Icarus_]

I would just like to point out that the Russians are constantly invading UK airspace and testing UK capabilities.(At least once a week) I would say that it's a throwback to bygone times, but it's not, these incursions dropped right off after the end of the cold war but started again in the past few years.

Even if there is no tangible threat right now, there are people constantly watching and looking for weakness. Some of the incursions include nuclear capable bombers and UK tornados are regularly engaged in electronic warfare of one kind or another during these incursions.

They are constantly testing us and any drop in our capabilities is immediately clocked.

Just something that seemed pertinent.

[Sunfish]

The biggest threat to the UK derives from your banks.

[Melchett01]

The biggest threat to the UK derives from your banks.

And Nick Clegg and Danny Alexanders' refreshingly blunt 6th form debating society approach to running the country.

[Pontius Navigator]

Icarus, that is not a problem area as we have the AWACS and the Typhoon both quite capable of satisfying the air policing role. The issue is really about whether we need all the other power projection tools with what I believe is a red herring when talking of expeditions in Asia. They might be nice symetric warfare but as others have said, not really our concern as the potential protagonists all have superior forces to us.

[Shack37]

Icarus, that is not a problem area as we have the
AWACS and the Typhoon both quite capable of satisfying the air policing role.
The issue is really about whether we need all the other power projection tools
with what I believe is a red herring when talking of expeditions in Asia. They
might be nice symetric warfare but as others have said, not really our concern
as the potential protagonists all have superior forces to us.


Air policing role satisfied, good thing:ok: and let's forget about unnecessary far eastern adventures but would it not be helpful/advisable to have MPA protection for our own deterrent? If only to have something available, in the event, to give any ambitious gents a bloody nose before they demolish us. A little satisfaction at least?

[TEEEJ]

Icarus,
It isn't that busy! It certainly isn't a weekly event. The Russians are operating in international airspace.

Question Asked by Lord Jopling

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Taylor of Bolton on 24 January 2008 (WA 58), on how many occasions in each of the last three years Royal Air Force aircraft have been launched to monitor Russian aircraft approaching UK airspace.[HL1663]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): The number of days on which Royal Air Force Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) aircraft have launched to identify Russian military aviation that approached or entered the NATO air policing area for which the UK has responsibility in each of the past three years is contained in the table below. The Russian aircraft remained in international airspace at all times.

Number of days QRA launched in response to Russian military aviation

2009 - 11

2010 - 11

2011 - 10

2012 to l July - 6

Lords Hansard text for 23 Jul 201223 July 2012 (pt 0001) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/120723w0001.htm)

September 12th was the last recorded intercept. Luftwaffe F-4s even got a chance to play.

Two Russian Tu-95MS Bear-H strategic bombers have successfully completed a routine patrol mission over the Barents, North and Norwegian seas, the Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.

"Two Tu-95MS strategic bombers based at the Engels Airbase [in Saratov Region] carried out patrols over neutral waters in the Barents, Northern and Norwegian seas on September 11-12 in line with the plan of strategic deterrent," spokesman Col. Vladimir Drik said. During the 17-hour mission, the crews practiced instrumental guidance flights and in-flight refueling.

They also carried out joint drills with MiG-31 Foxhound interceptors over Russian territory. The Russian bombers were shadowed over neutral waters by NATO F-16 and F-4F fighter jets from Denmark, Norway and the UK.

Russia resumed strategic bomber patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans in August 2007. According to the Defense Ministry, Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers have flown an average of 50 patrol missions every year. The same number of patrols is expected this year.

Russian Strategic Bombers Carry out North Patrols | Defense | RIA Novosti (http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120912/175920165.html)

Edited for insertion of links

[Pontius Navigator]

Shack, it occurs to me that air policing is a very visible role. We see them, we can see the AWACS we can see and hear the Typhoon.

The Nimrod was out of sight out of mind and you didn't 'see' them. OK, we did, but as far as the politicians were concerned there is none so blind . . .

[Big Bear]

So, which came first, the threat or the deterrent?

Do we lessen our deterrent because there is no threat, or is there no threat because we (used to) have a deterrent?

Just to quantify, by deterrent I mean a decent military capability, not explicitly 'the deterrent'.

Bear

[Finningley Boy]

Big Bear,

As simple an observation as it is, it is the the one lesson of history. This is what I've always thought to be the rationale behind all defence arrangements. To prepare to meet a perceived threat is one thing, but the threat which usually causes a problem is the one which is ignored or lessened.

FB:)

[teeteringhead]

Have You seen This Man?

Missing person alert. A young person, erstwhile student Tiffy, answering to the name of WEBFan, who is missing from this thread.

Identifying features. May be found in RNR uniform or that of an Olympic "Games Maker". Balanced personality (yes - you know the dit .....) ;)

Identifying cry: "Bring back the SeaJet!!" Occasionally (quite often really) adds "We can lease back from USMC, use the jets in the museum etc etc ......"

If found, please direct to this thread.

Reward: His presence here will be reward enough!

(Only joking Rich!) ;)

[Roadster280]

To be found on Arrse under the name "Yokel".

Last seen here (http://www.arrse.co.uk/london-olympics-2012/186386-operation-olympics-personal-view-2.html#post4634820)