Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks

[peter we]

"I've searched this thread and can't find any mention of immigration and Brexit."

maybe because it still has a tenous link to Military Avaiation - if immigration appears it'll be off to jet Blast.......

You are missing my point. Nobody is interested in defense, they are obsessed by immigration and the EU.

I cannot remember anyone instigating a discussion about the military threat from abroad since the end of the Cold War. An invasion of immigrants and the EU, thats another thing.

So, yes, there is complete public ignorance about defense because they can not see any threat.

[Finningley Boy]

Just heard Labour's Emily Thornberry on the Andrew Marr show say NATO would still be vital because we would need their help to move the Army off Salisbury Plain, as we don't have enough Frigates to move the Army...

I saw the interview, after Emily's tribute to NATO and concern about the lack of Frigates etc, Andrew Marr then played a videoed speech by Jeremy Corbyn from all the way back in 2011. In it he angrily accuses NATO as being a threat to world peace and so on... Back to Emily in the Studio again and with an exasperated tone utterly, disbelieving that Mr Marr hadn't spotted the obvious flaw here by not realising that the interview was given in 2011, a lot of water had flown under the Bridge since then!

FB:)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I think you are missing OWR's point - she appeared to be unaware that:

a. Frigates are not for moving troops.
b. If the RN did not have a manpower issue (due to cuts mostly) more ships could be fully operational.

[Not_a_boffin]

I think you're both missing the point, which is simply that she's a window-licking halfwit......

[Wander00]

NaB - and she speaks highly of you too.....
hat, coat....

[Obi Wan Russell]

I thought her half witted-ness was implicit in my post...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Does the current situation with a hung Parliament have implications for defence?

[aw ditor]

Probably'.

[pr00ne]

WEBF,

No.

[Melchett01]

Does the current situation with a hung Parliament have implications for defence?

Potentially, maybe.

Purdah, I believe is now over and there's no change of government so it should be carrying on from where we left off. But of course, the Government is in a very different place from where it was 2 months ago. It now needs to tread carefully; bold decisions are unlikely to be made and politically difficult issues might get put on the back burner which could affect Defence if they are linked in any way. And if austerity is cancelled, expect to see cuts in budgets to keep other politically sensitive areas e.g. welfare, education, policing etc funded. Could Defence spending take a hit or be re-profiled to keep benefits flowing to stave off the potential threats inherent in a second election down the line? Of course, with books fudged to then hit the 2% target.

[[email protected]]

Perhaps it is close to the time when we realise 50 years of underfunding of infrastructure, health and education in the UK means our country is approaching third-world status with no money to do anything about it.

Perhaps then we might accept that a submarine-launched independent nuclear detterent is a luxury we simply can't afford and a simpler and cheaper option (land-based missiles like N Korea????) would free up billions of public money to mend the country and stop the Corbinistas from promising things we can't presently afford.

We don't have an Empire any more (the Commonwealth really doesn't count) and we are hardly a world-leader in economic terms so maybe it is time to scale things down - apart from our conventional forces which have been cut far too harshly.

[Not_a_boffin]

Perhaps it is close to the time when we realise 50 years of underfunding of infrastructure, health and education in the UK means our country is approaching third-world status with no money to do anything about it.

Perhaps then we might accept that a submarine-launched independent nuclear detterent is a luxury we simply can't afford and a simpler and cheaper option (land-based missiles like N Korea????) would free up billions of public money to mend the country and stop the Corbinistas from promising things we can't presently afford.




Good luck with proving that one. Assuming you can find an OTS system and assuming Tarquin and Jemima can be persuaded to have some nasty missiles next door making them a target.


Incidentally, even the headcases at CND think that the whole-life cost of the submarine deterrent will be about £100Bn. Spread that over 40 years and you get £2.5Bn a year - simple cash numbers. Bias it a bit towards procurement (lets say £5bn pa over the first ten years) and £1.5Bn pa when in service.


That £5Bn pa is only 10% of the debt interest payment we make every year. Compare that with the £12Bn pa we spend on foreign aid, or the £130Bn pa we spend just on NHS, or the £100Bn pa we spend on edumacation, or the £250Bn pa we spend on welfare (mainly pensions).


Trident (and the carriers/F35) and Typhoon/FSTA etc are all a drop in the ocean compared to where the real money goes in this country.

[pr00ne]

crab,

Are you depressed? Suffering from lack of self esteem or loss of confidence?

If you REALLY think that the UK is approaching third world status and that we have no money then if one of the above does not apply then you are simply deluded.

Have you ever been to a genuine third world nation? If you had then you would know what arrant nonsense you spout. If you have then you are being disingenuous, or one of the conditions at the start must surely apply.

The UK is the fifth richest economy on the planet, the ninth largest industrial nation and has an influence and affect globally. We are THE financial hub of the world and are a key member of every global 'club' that you care to mention in economic, military and intelligence terms.

I recently travelled from New York to London, flying on a wonderful A380 which was over 60% British built in content, arriving at Heathrow, where I entered through an auto passport scanner, ordered a Uber from the terminal, was picked up in 6 minutes, travelled to West London in 15 minutes, then went into Central London on the Tube, walked down Whitehall, sat in a wonderful office for half a day with views of the new and the historic, travelled back to West London on the tube, then drove out to Oxfordshire on the M40, stayed in Oxford, travelled back to London on the train from the new Oxford station and was in Marylebone in about half an hour, in the centre again in 15 minutes, leaving at the end of the day by Thameslink to my final destination.

If you think that you can do any of that in that manner in the third world then you ARE deluded.

You DO have a point in terms of lack of investment and underfunding though. In 1950 income tax was at 50%, the equivalent of Corporation tax was at the same rate and we as a nation managed to drag ourselves out of the ashes of World War 2 and at the same time introduce the NHS, the Welfare state and develop a nuclear bomb.

Constantly cutting the tax take has had its effect.

[Martin the Martian]

The very interesting and recommended book The Silent Deep: The Royal Navy Submarine Service Since 1945 by Peter Hennessy and James Jinks gives the annual cost of maintaining the deterrent as 1.5% of the annual benefits bill.

Meanwhile, there was an article in The Times on Tuesday about the current detachment of B-1s, B-2s and B-52s at Fairford, and the comments section certainly showed that ignorance among the general public is alive and kicking.

[Martin the Martian]

crab,

Are you depressed? Suffering from lack of self esteem or loss of confidence?

If you REALLY think that the UK is approaching third world status and that we have no money then if one of the above does not apply then you are simply deluded.

Have you ever been to a genuine third world nation? If you had then you would know what arrant nonsense you spout. If you have then you are being disingenuous, or one of the conditions at the start must surely apply.

The UK is the fifth richest economy on the planet, the ninth largest industrial nation and has an influence and affect globally. We are THE financial hub of the world and are a key member of every global 'club' that you care to mention in economic, military and intelligence terms.

I recently travelled from New York to London, flying on a wonderful A380 which was over 60% British built in content, arriving at Heathrow, where I entered through an auto passport scanner, ordered a Uber from the terminal, was picked up in 6 minutes, travelled to West London in 15 minutes, then went into Central London on the Tube, walked down Whitehall, sat in a wonderful office for half a day with views of the new and the historic, travelled back to West London on the tube, then drove out to Oxfordshire on the M40, stayed in Oxford, travelled back to London on the train from the new Oxford station and was in Marylebone in about half an hour, in the centre again in 15 minutes, leaving at the end of the day by Thameslink to my final destination.

If you think that you can do any of that in that manner in the third world then you ARE deluded.

You DO have a point in terms of lack of investment and underfunding though. In 1950 income tax was at 50%, the equivalent of Corporation tax was at the same rate and we as a nation managed to drag ourselves out of the ashes of World War 2 and at the same time introduce the NHS, the Welfare state and develop a nuclear bomb.

Constantly cutting the tax take has had its effect.

But how do you make the average man (or woman) in the street, who are seeing their wages stagnate, their hopes of owning their own home getting further away, their hope for a comfortable retirement diminishing, and constantly being bashed over the head with austerity, from seeing all these benefits? For the majority of the population, living in the fifth richest economy on the planet, the ninth largest industrial nation, THE financial hub of the world and a key member of every global 'club' that you care to mention in economic, military and intelligence terms means diddly-squat to their day-to-day life.

[pax britanica]

Martin
you sum it up perfectly

if you are have some decent disposable income in UK it isnt a bad place at all. If you are rich it is wonderful since you can avoid paying tax on most of your income and enjoy all the good things about the UK

If you are Joe Public with no growth in wages for years , declining public services, failing infrastructure its not third world but ti is along way from what first world is supposed to mean.

But the truth inescapably is a lot of things are broken and need fixing and I am afraid nuclear weapons are luxury we cannot afford especially as they are under US control anyway.

To sum it up with a personal experience my daughter was told by here optician she had a small spot or growth at the back of her eye. probably Ok but if malignant she loses the eye. NHS- referral you get a letter in response saying they will be in touch but estimate 18 weeks before she can get an appointment. I can fortunately pay for a private consultation , see specialist inside 3 days and told all is OK.

Can such a gap ever be justifiable when its the same bunch of doctors operating from the same premises. And I live in Surrey-hardly Britain's most deprived area. And incidentally a very military part of Surrey and I think we are lucky to have the dedicated armed forces we do but from reading this site and others they are also regularly subjected to redundancy poor equipment political interference and penny pinching. I think scrapping the nukes would allow us to have a properly trained and equipped military force suitable for today's smaller scale wars and the money saved should be split between improving NHS and emergency services and the military . Incidentally including pensions as a cost for the government is very misleading as most of us pensioners paid in all our life for a state pension and that is not something that can just be treated as a cost since huge contributions were and are made directly from the public for it.

[Heathrow Harry]

Martin makes a very valid point as does pb - the only issue is that if we scarp Trident there is no guarantee th cash would stay witth the military - it could just as easily go on bus passes

[A_Van]

pr00ne,

IMHO, the strength of the UK (and some developed countries) is not in the travel scenario you described, but in the fact that the majority of the (UK) population can afford that (except for the office near Whitehall, of course :-) as well as other good things offered by modern civilization.
General "travel attributes" you mentioned are now often available in the 3rd world. E.g., one may arrive in a similar aircraft in Kuala-Lumpur (Malaysia), which airport is, by the way, usually ranked much higher than any European one, take a fast train to the downtown and then enjoy yourself in a pool on a roof of a 5 star hotel with a view on famous twin towers and green parks at 25-30% of the cost of similar accommodation in Europe.The same in Bangkok (though taking taxi, but no queue and fast toll road). But considering that UK people make 60 mln travels abroad per year (with population of 65.5 mln) this means about 1 trip per person per year on average. And what percentage of Malaysians or Thai people can afford trips abroad, even with travel distance like between UK and Spain (the most popular destination for UK citizens)? 1-digit percent, I suppose.

There is another statistics, however: how do people percept all this? We all can see some rich people around us who suffer from depression and are totally unhappy. There is interesting statistics about happiness, which is measured by some aggregated metrics (not just "a warm gun" :-) :

http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/HR17.pdf

There (p.22), UK is in 19th place (of 155) but Costa Rica (!) is in 12th, and some other Latin American folks are ranked close to UK. Surprisingly Japan is in 51-st place.

It's all relative...

[[email protected]]

NaB - but that 5Bn pa would fund a lot of the NHS, provide infrastructure projects and help a lot of people not in proones lucky world - I inhabit that same world but recognise I am one of the very fortunate ones.

Proone - done similar trips but now try to commute on the M3, M25, M6, M62 or God forbid, Southern Rail, try to get a doctor's appointment to fit in with your working commitments, try to save for a mortgage when your landlord is demanding the moon on a stick for your rent, try to spend less than 4 hour in an A&E department for a broken ankle, try to get routine surgery in less than 6 months, try to get a council house as an ex- mil veteran of Afghan who has been forced out of the Army - then tell me just how 1st world we really are.

The Lib Dems were the only party to be up front about tax - if we want to fix the country we have to pay for it - all of us, not just the Trostky's enemies earning over £80K. if we don't want to pay the tax then we have to get rid of things we can't afford and I agree that foreign aid is a good place to start.

One massive problem is the cost of public service pensions which is what cripples the NHS and most councils - I like a few here get a comfortable military pension and now pay into a company scheme where my employer matches my 6% salary sacrifice - the equivalent public sector pension has the taxpayer providing 25% and we wonder why it is so unaffordable.

[[email protected]]

As for being depressed - no but I am bloody disenchanted with all our politicians of all flavours who just constantly f**k things up in the name of dogma and party loyalties.

[BEagle]

...travelled back to London on the train from the new Oxford station and was in Marylebone in about half an hour...

You did well then, Comrade pr00ne, given that the minimum time quoted by the excellent Chiltern is over an hour.

No doubt you noted the appalling third world nature of Oxonian roads as you drove into the city? Years of neglect and underfunding...

[Not_a_boffin]

That £5Bn pa (in the ten year production phase only, thereafter £1.5Bn pa), represents less than 4% of the annual NHS budget - or two weeks running if you want to put it that way.


Point on pensions is well made - but I suspect that comes out of the £250Bn welfare pot, not NHS running budget - although happy to be corrected.


Point being we cannot keep funding what is in effect an unconstrained demand for "goodies" (pensions, healthcare, degree education for all) - particularly not on the backs of 5% of the population. There is a complete reluctance to address this - immediately accompanied by platitudes about "our NHS", "rights to free higher education etc".


People are living much longer, more complex (and expensive) treatments are available, population is increasing etc etc and yet any attempt to make anyone other than "the rich" pay for this is treated as an outrage, let alone questioning whether fully tax-funded is the right model any more. The French and German healthcare systems usually quoted as the exemplars of what the NHS aspire to are rarely noted as having a significant chunk of personal contributions.

[[email protected]]

NaB - agreed but that money would at least help the NHS stand still rather than falling further and further behind each year as the 'extra' money given by politicians doesn't account for the increasing demands of a growing and ageing population.

Agreed about the 'outrage' - as I said we can have the country we want as long as we are prepared to pay for it. None of our lily-livered politicians is prepared to make that policy because the great British unwashed will always vote for what directly affects their personal circumstances rather than what is good for the country - perhaps because we lack a leader with the ability to sell it properly.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Some food for thought.

Yesterday I got a train into town, and to use a bit of time I had a cup of tea in the station cafe - cost £1.75. Whilst drinking it I looked at a parliamentry paper (http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8010/CBP-8010.pdf) on the Dreadnought class SSBN.

The £2.2bn spent on maintaining the nuclear deterrent per year is roughly equivalent to £41m per week, or around £33 per person per year.

Makes you think...

[Heathrow Harry]

Some food for thought.

Yesterday I got a train into town, and to use a bit of time I had a cup of tea on the station cafe - cost £1.75. Whilst drinking it I looked at a parliamentry paper (http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8010/CBP-8010.pdf) on the Dreadnought class SSBN.

The £2.2bn spent on maintaining the nuclear deterrent per year is roughly equivalent to £41m per week, or around £33 per person per year.

Makes you think...


Indeed... and well put but we need politicians to point that out, papers and media to support it. We're just shouting in the wilderness TBH

[Martin the Martian]

Talking about public ignorance...

Why were these three planes spotted flying in formation over Cornwall last night? - Cornwall Live (http://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/were-three-planes-spotted-flying-515028)

Was Russian bomber intercepted by RAF flying over Cornwall | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4910228/Was-Russian-bomber-intercepted-RAF-flying-Cornwall.html)

And of course, some of the comments are a joy to behold...:rolleyes:

[Melchett01]

Indeed... and well put but we need politicians to point that out, papers and media to support it. We're just shouting in the wilderness TBH

Unfortunately we live in a society, and are led by a political class, which for the most part knows lots about cost but with little appreciation for value or understanding beyond the veneer of media headlines. This is but one example; comments on public sector pay and pensions are another. And there is little scrutiny of the arguments, just a Pavlovian agreement by those in positions of authority aiming to shore their position.

[ORAC]

Defence chief Tony Douglas jumps ship and ‘leaves MoD in chaos’ (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/defence-chief-tony-douglas-jumps-ship-and-leaves-mod-in-chaos-q6vks5jqs)

The man in charge of buying Britain’s jets and warships is quitting after claims that his department is in chaos and struggling with rising costs.

Tony Douglas, one of the highest-earning civil servants with a pay packet of about £500,000, will leave the Ministry of Defence at the end of the year to become head of Etihad Aviation Group, which is based in Abu Dhabi. His departure from Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), after two years as chief executive and seven months before his contract’s renewal, was met with regret by Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary. The department is now trying to find a replacement. “This is considered to be very bad form for somebody to walk away when it gets too difficult,” a source said. “The department is in chaos.”

Whitehall and military chiefs have been working on a review aimed at tackling a £20 billion to £30 billion shortfall in the defence budget over the next decade. DE&S must find more than £3 billion in savings as part of it, a challenge that insiders say is not being met. The department has also had to deal with the fall in sterling, which has pushed up the cost of equipment overseas. Sources claimed that Mr Douglas had been unhappy that the government had given responsibility for the construction of submarines to another agency.

“Tony has got a good job to go to, but he went out and got one because he could not stand the heat in the kitchen,” a senior defence industry source said. “He has left a rudderless, directionless and leaderless organisation.” Francis Tusa, editor of the Defence Analysis newsletter, said: “There is no positive spin you can put on this.” An MoD source disagreed, saying that Mr Douglas had left to go to his “dream job”, adding: “Not everything is a conspiracy.”

Mr Douglas, who was chief executive of Abu Dhabi airport before taking up his role at the MoD, said it had been a difficult decision to resign. “We have made very real progress on project delivery and transformation,” he said. “My decision has been made easier by the knowledge that it will remain in capable hands. I have decided to leave because I have been offered a compelling opportunity in the private sector and in an industry, unconnected with defence, which I know well.”

Sir Michael said: “I am personally very grateful for the help and support Tony has provided to me personally and been very impressed by the significant progress he has achieved in his time with the MoD. We will be sorry to lose him. I am confident that the momentum he has generated will be maintained by his executive team.”

Behind the story

The Ministry of Defence is in a bit of a mess (Sources claimed that Mr Douglas had been unhappy that the government had given responsibility for the construction of submarines to another agency.

“Tony has got a good job to go to, but he went out and got one because he could not stand the heat in the kitchen,” a senior defence industry source said. “He has left a rudderless, directionless and leaderless organisation.”

Francis Tusa, editor of the Defence Analysis newsletter, said: “There is no positive spin you can put on this.”

An MoD source disagreed, saying that Mr Douglas had left to go to his “dream job”, adding: “Not everything is a conspiracy.”

Mr Douglas, who was chief executive of Abu Dhabi airport before taking up his role at the MoD, said it had been a difficult decision to resign.

“We have made very real progress on project delivery and transformation,” he said. “My decision has been made easier by the knowledge that it will remain in capable hands.

“I have decided to leave because I have been offered a compelling opportunity in the private sector and in an industry, unconnected with defence, which I know well.”

Sir Michael said: “I am personally very grateful for the help and support Tony has provided to me personally and been very impressed by the significant progress he has achieved in his time with the MoD.

“We will be sorry to lose him. I am confident that the momentum he has generated will be maintained by his executive team.”....."

[Heathrow Harry]

A very wise man.................. crunch time coming up, no money available and just a load of brown stuff about to hit the fan.......

and a nice job in the Gulf, NOT paid in sterling presumably........... and a million miles from feuding Tories and Comrade Corbyn.......

[skippedonce]

Rats, even (or especially) those leaving a sinking ship, are pretty cunning and intelligent creatures.

[tucumseh]

I wouldn't be too quick to condemn Mr Douglas. With every change to Government policy, effectively the terms and conditions under which he was employed changed. If other Government employees cannot bring themselves to implement these policies, they are required to resign. He was, apparently, on a <3 year contract, which is a longer tour than most in MoD are expected to complete. Perhaps his job was simply made impossible? It wouldn't have been easy to begin with, as he would have quickly realised that he was sold a pup in the shape of his predecessor's "initiatives", which were little more than (a) digging out old ideas from the GEMS suggestion scheme, and (b) suggesting that mandated policy be funded.

[Heathrow Harry]

"(b) suggesting that mandated policy be funded."

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[tucumseh]

Harry

I should have made myself clearer. He (B Gray) didn't actually know he was suggesting this. It was obviously fed to him by a lackey, who had presented it as his own work without understanding it. When it was pointed out by an MP, he denied having said the words. MP duly sent a link to the BBC website, which still had the interview for download. And a copy of the 2-part Defence Standard which, if his most junior staff didn't know by heart, made "time, cost and performance" very difficult to achieve. That he lasted so long after that is one of the great wonders.

[Heathrow Harry]

thanks Tuc

TBH I'm amazed anyone would ever take such a job - you have no real control over the inputs or the outputs and the aims change constantly.

maybe they said he'd get a knighhood.... I know someone who was promised one if he took a particularly awful role of a similar type....... he was wise enough to do his research before turning it down tho'........

[ORAC]

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/julian-thompson-weve-stumbled-brexit-trap-defence/

[Heathrow Harry]

well thats not exactly clear - he doesn't point to a single hard fact or case

[skydiver69]

Royal Navy could lose 'fight on beaches' ships in planned cuts - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41511790)

The Royal Navy could lose its ability to assault enemy-held beaches under plans being considered in the Ministry of Defence, BBC Newsnight understands.
Two specialist landing ships - HMS Albion and Bulwark - would be taken out of service under the proposals.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Interesting timing. Yesterday MOD published UK Maritime Power (JDP 0-10) (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-maritime-power-jdp-0-10)

It outlines the enduring utility of maritime power and how the maritime environment is crucial to the rules based system within which the UK operates. It further explains the principles that underpin the way in which UK maritime forces operate to offer scalable and responsive options, without commitment, to our government in support of our national interests.

The doctrine:

•defines maritime power
•explains the attributes of maritime forces
•explains the use of maritime power through the concept of sea control and the principles of maritime manoeuvre and maritime power projection
•sets out the 3 main roles of UK maritime power: warfighting, maritime security and defence engagement;
•explains the maritime contribution to joint action and the full spectrum approach.

[Heathrow Harry]

In the "Times" their sources are blaming the decision to buy the QE's for the possible loss of amphibious and helicopter capability

[melmothtw]

The department has also had to deal with the fall in sterling

AKA Brexit, but of course the Times can't say that.

[Onceapilot]

In the "Times" their sources are blaming the decision to buy the QE's for the possible loss of amphibious and helicopter capability

It is certainly true that the Defence budget is being wasted on those two big boats.

OAP

[Melchett01]

It is certainly true that the Defence budget is being wasted on those two big boats.

OAP

Newsnight last night noted that adjustments - not cuts! - would be felt across all 3 services, with RW fleets in the Army and Navy cut back and F35 deliveries likely to be slowed down. The next question then is just what is going on these carriers if that's the case?

[Martin the Martian]

The next question then is just what is going on these carriers if that's the case?

ALL of the Royal Navy, the way things are going.

[[email protected]]

BBC News website quoted a 'Senior MOD Official' as blaming the Navy for getting them into this mess so they would have to take the pain for getting them out!

Ambitious VSOs playing games with long-term costings and project dates.....not unlike the bankers gambling with other peoples money.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

So it is nothing to do with the RN asking for a manpower uplift of 1500 - 2000 people before SDSR 15 (as did the RAF*), and it being accepted, but Cameron bottled it as it would have meant cutting Army numbers which would have looked bad?

If yes, then it is the Generals' mess.

I am sure that when Albion and Bulwark were designed, the assumption was made they would operate with a carrier for protection (Air Defence and ASW), Close Support of the troops, and lift.

This old thread from 2003 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/93732-hms-albion-commisioned.html) suggests so.

*Where will the RAF find people to operate new MPA without causing pain elsewhere in the Service?

[Just This Once...]

It is certainly true that the Defence budget is being wasted on those two big boats.

Defence having to 'own' the cost of the really big underwater boats makes everything else look rather small.

This puts the RN in a bit of a bind. Either support/enable/defend the boomers or support/enable/defend the carriers. The RN philosophy for a number of years when it comes to both funding and manning uplifts has been 'they must' supported by an argument about how much has been spent or committed for these capabilities. I'm not sure the argument is working.

[downsizer]

*Where will the RAF find people to operate new MPA without causing pain elsewhere in the Service?

Dunno, tornado draw down, sentinel folding, slowdown of F35, reduction in forward chinnies perhaps?

[Melchett01]

BBC News website quoted a 'Senior MOD Official' as blaming the Navy for getting them into this mess so they would have to take the pain for getting them out!

Ambitious VSOs playing games with long-term costings and project dates.....not unlike the bankers gambling with other peoples money.

That's as may be, but there are major strategic implications here, and not just militarily. The UK's image has the potential to unravel rapidly if we are not careful. We want to portray ourselves as key players and reliable partners and yet all we are able to offer up are small numbers and 1s & 2s here and there. Frankly in a world going to hell in a handcart requiring more and more intervention to preserve national equities, then this isn't going to cut it and we will be found wanting. If we want to be more than a bit part player, yes we need senior leaders to be fiscally responsible, but equally our national leadership must also realise they can't simply pass the buck down the chain and totally absolve themselves for the outcomes of the decisions based on their framework within which we operate.

[163627]

I've just been reading in today's Times that on the same list of "adjustments" as Albion and Bulwark are the entire fleet of 28 Wildcat HMA2 helicopters which would leave the FAA with just Merlin! Surely there must be some element of bluff in floating such ideas, how on earth would the RN manage or are we happy as a nation to sit with a navy of 4 Trident boats and 2 aircraft carriers which are likely to have nothing to "carry" but a few Chinooks and lots of aid packages?

[draken55]

It's been said before I am sure but with Ocean going, the SSN's off to the Clyde in the near future and Bulwark and Albion at risk, a big question mark grows over the continued need for Devonport.

Logically, the cost of Trident should be placed back with the Treasury but with all the promises now being made by HMG that is not likely.

[Not_a_boffin]

One suspects the problem may lie here.

Corps & Regiments - British Army Website (http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/32320.aspx)


Guzz has always been riskier than many think. Hard to get into (by sea and at the gate!) and heavily dependent on nuclear refitting, without which the cost of it's rather dispersed infrastructure becomes a bit much.

[Buster15]

That's as may be, but there are major strategic implications here, and not just militarily. The UK's image has the potential to unravel rapidly if we are not careful. We want to portray ourselves as key players and reliable partners and yet all we are able to offer up are small numbers and 1s & 2s here and there. Frankly in a world going to hell in a handcart requiring more and more intervention to preserve national equities, then this isn't going to cut it and we will be found wanting. If we want to be more than a bit part player, yes we need senior leaders to be fiscally responsible, but equally our national leadership must also realise they can't simply pass the buck down the chain and totally absolve themselves for the outcomes of the decisions based on their framework within which we operate.

An excellent input with a clear understanding of the issues.
We were told by Mr Cameron that overcoming DAESH was the struggle of our lifetime and I have no reason to disagree. On that basis, what part will the new carriers place in that.
To my mind it is clear that we should be putting more resources into the 'GO TO' equipment we have been utilising for years, that being ISTAR jets.
Had it not been due to Tornado withdrawal Typhoon would not have been given the current upgrade programme of ground attack. That would have left us totally reliant on the new F35.
The real issue then would be - how will F35 cope with being a true workhorse (flying the ass off it) despite the maintenance requires.
All that glitters isn't gold.

[[email protected]]

All that glisters isn't gold. it's usually a turd rolled in glitter and polished where procurement is concerned:)

[Bismark]

When you consider that the whole of The Times's article was based on a Newsnight report you begin to realise the tenuous nature of what is being reported as "fact". Lots of kites being flown to try and trigger a reaction.

If RN Wildcat is withdrawn I think that will leave the T45 without a helicopter as I don't believe Merlin has a clearance for T45 without the ship shutting all transmitters off.

[Onceapilot]

Defence having to 'own' the cost of the really big underwater boats makes everything else look rather small.

This puts the RN in a bit of a bind.

Hi JTO,
I would be happy to see Trident (and successor) funding as a national asset or, tri-service cost. However, what seems to have happened, with the war canoes, is an RN push for an unstoppable (defence) budget-grab! :oh: Whereas, what really matters is the identification of the real need for certain capabilities versus their cost to the nation and, their relative merit compared to other necessary defence of the nation capabilities.
I am disappointed that the efforts of our now VSO contemporaries seem to be somewhat blinkered.;) Cheers

OAP

[Heathrow Harry]

Trouble is who decides whatthose interests are and how are they going to be met......

If we spent 20% of GDP on defence we'd still have fights over what we buy and use with each Service and Defence Industry company fighting to maximise their share and do the rest down.

What is clear is that we can't do meet anything like the current roles required at 2% - I suspect even 3% wouldn't be enough

So which politician is willing to go and slaughter a few sacred cows elsewhere - say bus passes, Doctors salaries, the tax break on pension contributions, higher petrol prices, a tax on builders land banks, civl service pensions etc etc.......................

I'm not holding my breath...................

[WE Branch Fanatic]

However, what seems to have happened, with the war canoes, is an RN push for an unstoppable (defence) budget-grab! :oh: Whereas, what really matters is the identification of the real need for certain capabilities versus their cost to the nation and, their relative merit compared to other necessary defence of the nation capabilities.


You mean like successive defence reviews that decided the UK needs carrier strike, amphibious capability, and Continuous At Sea Deterrence? How is standing still (maintaining current capabilities) a budget grab? Perhaps you might be interested in this discussion:

The Royal Marines no longer needed? (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/the-royal-marines-no-longer-needed.267468/)

In 2015 the naval staff provided demonstrated that a manpower uplift of 1500 was needed, but the them PM intervened and refused. This is the Royal Navy's major issue at the moment.

[Onceapilot]

HH,
As I am sure you are aware, huge effort goes into the assessment of threats to the UK and our assets. Obviously, the government make the decisions on spending plans and those political decisions form part of the type of policy that the population vote on. In the past, when the UK was less wealthy, poor Military spending plans have seriously damaged the fortunes of political parties and I think similar circumstances might prevail again.
It might be realistic to say that the service chiefs would argue, however big the Defence budget was made, but if spending is tight it becomes even more important that the spending is targeted on the most important capabilities. My opinion is that the QE class project is an extremely poorly targeted capability for the UK.

OAP

[Heathrow Harry]

OAP

I agree with you onthe QE's but whatever our views are I think everyone on here is agreed that we have stretched the Forces - all of them - far too thin.

We can
a) continue as is and hope and pray we don't finish up losing men, assets and reputation when the chickens come home to roost

b) cut the roles to fit the cash

c) significantly increase spending

Tories will go for a) & Corbyn for b) is my guess.........................

[Crromwellman]

Don't forget political Rule One, Line One. There are no votes in defence - until its needed (my addition). Also the RM are often on scene first on humanitarian ops - vide the recent hurricane relief in Bahamas

[WE Branch Fanatic]

According to today's Times, the Americans (yes the same one who think that the UK ought to have a carrier capability) have expressed concern over proposed cuts (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/us-military-officers-raise-fears-over-royal-marine-cuts-gphqtd6pq) to the Royal Marines and amphibious capabilities.

[glad rag]

According to today's Times, the Americans (yes the same one who think that the UK ought to have a carrier capability) have expressed concern over proposed cuts (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/us-military-officers-raise-fears-over-royal-marine-cuts-gphqtd6pq) to the Royal Marines and amphibious capabilities.

What's in it for Boeing is my first thought?

[Lyneham Lad]

Armed forces near breaking point with navy underfunded and air force at edge of capacity, Commons committee told

Article in The Guardian today. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/british-forces-no-longer-fit-for-purpose-former-uk-service-chiefs-warn)

Cue the usual MOD spokesperson trotting out the same old reassurances that all is well... :ugh: :{

[pax britanica]

Why do we need an army navy and airforce. If defence was outsourced or privatised the first thing management would do is combine it into a defence force .

there is no need any more for specialist high ranking officers and where there is we cannot afford to have so many .

Whats the argument against?

If that doesnt work what is actually wrong with a Pan EU defence force -ok we might leave the Eu but we can't leave Europe. Neither the French nor Germans or even Spanish are going to attack us . Neither is the Warsaw pact since theyare all now on our side except for Russia

Russia isnt a threat to anyone except its immediate neighbours and thats non of our business to tell people who they can or cannot occupy.

So who are our enemies , and whoever they are they are likely to be enemies of France Germany Italy Spain Poland Cz etc etc as well.

We could cover almost all our procurement from neighbours and because we have nukes could claim that we should be at the very top of the command chin, well just below the French as they have an INDEPENDENT nuclear weapons capability whereas ours is under US control but as we have been military and military equipment partners with the French for 120 years and we are neighbours on land and sea ( the channel cannot be classed as sea any more) theres no harm in a top table of two especially as we are on exactly the same page on issues like ISIS and Daesh.

So whats the problem with both suggestions which would save huge amount of money

[Royalistflyer]

Dear Pax, first try reading history. Europe may be EU now, but there's no guarantee at all that it will remain united. The Germans are determined to unite European forces under their command, they have already integrated Romanian, Belgian Dutch and I think Danish units into their own Army. This is of course precisely what Mr Hitler did after he had invaded. During WW II we weren't just fighting Germany, we were fighting a largely integrated European Army. The Germans this time haven't resorted to armed force, they have simply commandeered the EU and now they want a EU army ..... and some of their politicians have specified it will be under their control. Recently the French offered the Germans joint control of French nuclear weapons. I'm sorry, but we need dedicated armed forces for the defence of these islands and our sources of supply. We need to revivify our own defence industry so that we control it and what it builds is ours alone. If Sweden and France can build modern aircraft and ships, we certainly can - if our industry is encouraged to do so. I hope that a clean break with Europe will see certain shipbuilding and aircraft building facilities opened up here.

[Melchett01]

Oh goody, here we go again. I thought it had been a while since that was asked.

For the same reason you need Police, Fire and Paramedics. They all do different things, have different specialisations and closing the Paramedics down and giving them shiny yellow hats doesn't mean the requirement hasn't gone away.

I think that just about sums it up whilst removing inter-service parochialism and offering a level of sophistication in the analysis exceeding that in the question.

[Willard Whyte]

the French as they have an INDEPENDENT nuclear weapons capability whereas ours is under US control


Oft quoted but what is meant by this?


It's true that our Trident missiles are selected at random from a common pool that is held in the USA that also 'supplies' the US Navy. But once in our boats they are completely independent; indeed there are fewer safeguards to launching one from a Royal Navy boat than a US Navy one due to our decision to omit a Permissive Action Link. And as stated above, the 'physics package' is ours.

[Chinny Crewman]

...core british values...

I believe civilians have different ideas as to what these are and how to uphold them than we do?

Regarding someone's 'read history' comment I suggest that we could learn from some modern history. Recent failed military adventures have lowered the stock of our military to the point where there are "no votes in defence".

I would also say the waste in the military is scandalous (in keeping with many public bodies). You only have to read some recent threads on here regarding pointless red tape, unnecessary regulation and poor procurement. Maybe we should put our own house in order as a first step to countering the shortfall?

[SARF]

I think we should just maintain our own specialised forces at the moment. Let the eu gradually try to become the fourth reich. Then when it all inevitably goes tits up , sit this one out for a change ., maybe save a generation of young men and women, avoid rationing and perhaps profit from the selling of arms and supplies to whatever side we see fit ..
do a USA. Once we know who is likely to win the pile in and make a triple fortune.. possibly acquire a few bases around the globe and some 80 year gilt edged debt..
Jobs a gooden.

[pr00ne]

SARF,,


WHAT?????

In English?

[Buster15]

Why do we need an army navy and airforce. If defence was outsourced or privatised the first thing management would do is combine it into a defence force .

Don't agree. Successful companies focus on specialising on what they are good at. Combining disperate sectors is a recipe for failure.

there is no need any more for specialist high ranking officers and where there is we cannot afford to have so many .

Whats the argument against?

The simple argument is that successful companies hire the very best and reward them accordingly.

If that doesnt work what is actually wrong with a Pan EU defence force -ok we might leave the Eu but we can't leave Europe. Neither the French nor Germans or even Spanish are going to attack us . Neither is the Warsaw pact since theyare all now on our side except for Russia

Russia isnt a threat to anyone except its immediate neighbours and thats non of our business to tell people who they can or cannot occupy.

Who says that Russia isnt a threat. If you have even the slightest understanding of Putin you will know that he is intent on recreating the Soviet union.

So who are our enemies , and whoever they are they are likely to be enemies of France Germany Italy Spain Poland Cz etc etc as well.

I suggest that you read your history books.

We could cover almost all our procurement from neighbours and because we have nukes could claim that we should be at the very top of the command chin, well just below the French as they have an INDEPENDENT nuclear weapons capability whereas ours is under US control but as we have been military and military equipment partners with the French for 120 years and we are neighbours on land and sea ( the channel cannot be classed as sea any more) theres no harm in a top table of two especially as we are on exactly the same page on issues like ISIS and Daesh.

So whats the problem with both suggestions which would save huge amount of money

The problem is that this is a typical example of someone who has no understanding of our nation or why its defence is so important and why we choose to invest 2% of our GDP on it.

[tucumseh]

May I suggest the above quote is edited to show what Pax said?

Before setting out such an argument, I think it would wise to ask why we cannot afford (whatever). We've been told this so often that it has become widely accepted. I simply ask one question. Why do MoD senior staff and politicians flatly refuse to avoid the astronomical waste that has, effectively, become policy? (Policy, because funding is committed to both protecting those who practice it, and vilifying those who rail against it).

If I were in the Treasury, I would tell MoD (the NHS, and others) to bu**er off and only come back when they can demonstrate they're following compulsory regulations for scrutinising expenditure. The Services (and patients) shouldn't suffer, because it would take 10 minutes for the respective Secys of State to issue an edict that the next person who refuses to carry out this legal obligation will be sacked on the spot.

[Heathrow Harry]

Tuc - you're sailing close to the point where everything is blamed on "waste" and "inefificiencies caused by XXX" where XXX is not us but someone else - as we're YYY - substitute Military, Politicians, Civil Service, BAe, the EU, .... (either XXX or YYY but not both)

I believe "inefficiencies" are part and parcel of a democratic, dispersed decision taking system be it the NHS or the "Successor" progaramme - it's something that we just have to live with. Dictatorships have even worse long-term wastage etc.

When people say "we cannot afford" what they mean is that the public has no appetite for more spending on defence - they honestly can't see the point of much of the expenditure when they feel there are more pressing issues closer to home - their home, work and familly.

They don't believe the politicians and their constant desire for foreign adventures, they don't beleive Industry with it's lamenatable record on delivery and costings, they don't believe the armed forces are very effective against terrorism, they are scepical about statements from retired offcers saying that the sky will fall if we disband HMS Ocean/the marines/the band of the RAF

They see spending the money on the NHS, teachers, fixing potholes and getting houses for young people as a better use of the money...............

Those of us who disagree have to make the case - not on here but out there - and TBH I don't think we're winning

[tucumseh]

Harry

I was simply applying the Avoid the avoidable, manage the unavoidable rule. It causes no harm. But I agree with your sentiments.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Perhaps things like this need to be publicised more: RN Divers destroy wartime bomb near North Sea gas pipe (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2017/november/17/171117-royal-navy-divers-destroy-wartime-bomb-near-major-north-sea-gas-pipe)

Petty Officer (Diver) Lee Sullivan, from the Royal Navy’s Portsmouth-based Southern Diving Unit 2, said: “The proximity of the bomb to the gas pipeline clearly presented a significant risk but we were able to deal with the situation quickly.

“We safely removed the bomb from the pipeline area, and then carried out a controlled demolition. Fortunately the bomb turned out to be inert, meaning it wouldn’t have posed a danger but there was no way of knowing this until we destroyed it.”

HMS Cattistock arrived on scene within 24 hours of the call and swiftly located the bomb using the ship’s remotely operated vehicle. The embarked bomb disposal divers went down to assess the device on Wednesday and confirmed it was an air-dropped 500lb bomb, likely to have been dropped by Germans in the Second World War.

Or today - RN frigate shadows Russian warship (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2017/november/20/171120-royal-navy-frigate-shadows-russian-warship-in-moray-firth)

Royal Navy frigate HMS Somerset shadowed a Russian naval destroyer through the Moray Firth this weekend.

Somerset, a Plymouth-based Type 23 frigate, detected and monitored the movements of the Russian warship Vice Admiral Kulakov and her supporting tanker.

HMS Somerset had been engaged in trials of her cutting-edge sonar equipment when she received the call to locate and shadow the Russian units.

She arrived in the Moray Firth on Saturday (18 November) and escorted the ships through UK waters and north along the coast of Norway before returning to her original task.

Commander Timothy Berry, HMS Somerset's Commanding Officer, said: "As with all Royal Navy ships operating in UK waters, HMS Somerset was at a high state of alert to deal with any maritime security task such as this.

"Monitoring transits of non-NATO warships through UK territorial waters is part of what the Royal Navy does all year round to keep Britain safe.

"We now continue with our original tasking having seen the Russian ships safely through the UK's area of interest."

Or the Army helping deal with poachers (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-british-army-combat-the-illegal-trade-in-wildlife-by-partnering-with-african-parks-and-the-malawian-department-of-national-parks-and-wildlife) killing endangered animals in Africa?

Or the RAF assets on QRA?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Escorting passing Russians continued over Christmas....

With respect to recent talk of cuts of amphibious capabilities, including both the numbers of Royal Marines and the Landing Platform Docks (HM Ships Albion and Bulwark), I think it worth noting how amphibious forces are part of our commitment to NATO.

Royal Navy’s Assault Ship sails to lead NATO Task Group (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2018/february/06/180206-hms-albion-deploys)

This new tasking fulfills a vital contingency role for NATO in the Mediterranean. The task group will protect NATO interests by promoting security and stability in the region whilst offering options for NATO to deal with any emergent tasking.

Over the coming months, HMS Albion will undertake presence and security operations as well as conducting multi-national exercises aimed at increasing the way the navies of the task group work together.

The commander of SNMG2, Commodore Mike Utley, said: “Our role in NATO sits right at the heart of British Government policy to reinforce our commitment to international partners and their broader security.

"What better way for the UK to contribute than to lead this task group from HMS Albion - I am immensely proud to command such a highly professional and internationally diverse force.’’

[WE Branch Fanatic]

How many merchant ships, how many frigates or destroyers. The numbers don't stack up. I would not disagree we need escorts but defending SLOC is a joke.

So because we can (and have no need) to protect merchant vessels anywhere - we should not protect them anywhere? What about where there is a proven threat:

Sailors recognised for going beyond the call of duty (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2018/march/05/180305-sailors-recognised-for-going-beyond-the-call-of-duty) - RN website

A warfare officer who ensured 650,000 tonnes of British shipping safely passed through the gauntlet of ‘missile alley’ in the Middle East is one of several sailors to receive the Queen’s Commendation for Valuable Service.

Lt Cdr Ben Martin was HMS Daring’s Principal Warfare Officer during her 2016-17 deployment to the Gulf.

The destroyer was called upon to safeguard shipping passing through the Bab el Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea following an attack on the MV Swift.

Operations lasted 50 days, throughout which the ship operated under the threat of attack by Houthi rebel-controlled coastal-defence cruise missiles and explosive boats.

Each transit of the chokepoint was conducted at the highest degree of personnel and material readiness and Lt Cdr Martin oversaw the preparations and conduct of every one.

[Heathrow Harry]

Another day, another ex-So making a point

UK military credibility 'at risk' over cuts - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43365208)

The former commander of the UK's Maritime Forces has said Britain is in danger of losing its status as a "credible military power".

Rear Admiral Alex Burton told the BBC that years of budget cuts and rising military threats meant the defence budget needed to be increased urgently.
He said the ability to "fight and win on the front line" was being affected. And, if fresh spending wasn't announced, Britain would be morally poorer on the world stage.
His comments come 24 hours before the Chancellor's Spring Statement on the state of the public finances.

And the day after Philip Hammond said that there was "light" at the end of the austerity tunnel - possibly leaving some more headroom for spending increases. Rear Admiral Burton, who left the armed forces last autumn, told me: "If you do not spend more on defence than we currently are as a percentage of GDP, then we put at risk the fact that we are currently a credible military power, and from that we put at risk our position on the global stage."
He said that military threats were increasing from countries like Russia, from cyber warfare and from terrorist organisations.

Rear Admiral Burton, who was also NATO commander in charge of "high readiness" naval forces, argued that with Britain preparing to leave the European Union it was vital that defence spending was raised to at least 2.5% of GDP to support global trade. At present the government has a military spending target of 2% of GDP, set as the target for all members of NATO.
An increase to 2.5% would mean spending an extra £7.7bn a year on defence.

At present Russia spends more than 5% of its GDP on defence, and Britain now spends less on defence than under Tony Blair, when the figure was 2.7%.

"What worries me and worried me when I left the front line and was operating in headquarters is that some of the decisions we were making - and potentially over the next 12 months some of the decisions that will be made - will affect the ability to fight and win on the front line," he said, referring to the Modern Defence Programme Review which is looking at possible defence budget shortfalls over the next decade of £20bn. And the challenge is ensuring that we're still able to do that [fight and win] not just over the next 12 to 18 months, but that we're able to do that over the next 10 to 20 years."

The Rear Admiral is still very well connected in military circles and his comments come two weeks after General Sir Gordon Messenger, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, said that a case should be made for a "bigger defence budget". Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, is also believed to have clashed with Mr Hammond over defence spending.

The Spring Statement tomorrow is the second most important Parliamentary event on the economy after the Budget in the autumn. Mr Hammond will lay out the latest information on the state of the economy and public spending.

It is expected that the public finances will be in better shape than forecast last year, with borrowing about £10bn below the expected level. That could give the Chancellor some increased headroom on spending though it has been made clear that the Spring Statement will not focus on new commitments. Rear Admiral Burton said that he understood the needs of the NHS and the police, for example, had to be balanced by the government and that after the financial crisis the Ministry of Defence had to become more efficient and show it could spend money wisely - which it had done. But he said military threats had to be taken seriously. "Those threats are threats to our investments that we've got abroad," he said.
"So it would be easy for people to look at retired military people, of which I am one, and be critical - seeing us as defenders of totemic capabilities which have their lineage going back to the Second World War. Whether that's the Royal Marines, our amphibious capability, aircraft, tanks or regiments. But I believe that if we are to retain an edge for the military that we need, we need the sword upon which that edge can be had and that includes some of those capabilities that we've used since the Viking era and will continue to use many years ahead."

"Without them [the military] we will be unable to deter, we'll be unable to reassure and deliver retribution," he said. "And as a sovereign nation - an increasingly sovereign nation - I think that's critically important. "Our insurance policy, I believe, will be compromised and our ability to stand up for our beliefs and protect our interests will be weakened.

Changing threats

"And I think that that will make the UK of the late 2010s and early 2020s poorer, both morally and financially." Rear Admiral Burton said he understood the need for the military to show that it could spend money sensibly, and that it was now much more efficient than it had been in the past. The Treasury said that defence spending was already growing to meet the "ever changing threats" and that it was the fastest growing budget in Whitehall. "The UK maintains the biggest defence budget in Europe and the fifth largest in the world, already exceeding NATO's 2% spending target," a spokesperson said. "Over the next three years, the defence budget is increasing by £1bn a year."

[Phil_R]

"The UK maintains the biggest defence budget in Europe and the fifth largest in the world, already exceeding NATO's 2% spending target," a spokesperson said.

Does the UK have the fifth largest military capability in the world?

[Buster15]

Does the UK have the fifth largest military capability in the world?

It is widely know that the so called 2% of GDP figure contains a great deal of creative accountancy.
One or two senior defence officials going public about lack of defence spending would be normal but the number now making their concerns known ought to be a major national concern. But, sadly the government will continue to try to paper over the increasing cracks.

[camelspyyder]

Speaking of ignorance and media reporting, it is said today the PM has accused Russia of using "Military-grade nerve agent" on British soil. I had no idea that there were non-Military grades of that stuff. Fly-spray perhaps?

[Heathrow Harry]

If you ever used SHELLTOX regularly I think you might prefer Sarin...............

[Training Risky]

Another day, another ex-So making a point

UK military credibility 'at risk' over cuts - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43365208)

The former commander of the UK's Maritime Forces has said Britain is in danger of losing its status as a "credible military power".

Rear Admiral Alex Burton told the BBC that years of budget cuts and rising military threats meant the defence budget needed to be increased urgently....

Ah, another one magically finding his voice after retirement.

How does the old chestnut go..?

Get a Commission = they take your brain away.
Promote to Sqn Ldr = they take your mouth away.
Promote to Wg Cdr = they take your balls away.
Promote to Star rank = they give you your mouth back. :}

[Heathrow Harry]

yeah but you only tell the truth after you've left..............

[alfred_the_great]

Ah, another one magically finding his voice after retirement.

How does the old chestnut go..?

Get a Commission = they take your brain away.
Promote to Sqn Ldr = they take your mouth away.
Promote to Wg Cdr = they take your balls away.
Promote to Star rank = they give you your mouth back. :}

Trust me, Burton was like this in service.

[Red Line Entry]

And of course, all of you lot wrote to the papers while you were serving to complain about cuts...
Oh hang on, you didn’t. Maybe that was because as a serving officer/airman/soldier you had a duty to support the elected representatives of the people, regardless of whether you agreed with them or not.
Once retired, you are of course free to express whatever views you wish. Maybe that is exactly what the Admiral is doing.

[Torquelink]

The Treasury said that defence spending was already growing to meet the "ever changing threats" and that it was the fastest growing budget in Whitehall. "The UK maintains the biggest defence budget in Europe and the fifth largest in the world, already exceeding NATO's 2% spending target," a spokesperson said. "Over the next three years, the defence budget is increasing by £1bn a year."

This is the standard response to anyone querying the state of our armed forces. It's as if the government believes that spending 2% of GDP is an end - or an answer - in itself and not the capability which is or is not achieved. The fact that vast sums are wasted or that the achieved bang for the buck compared to, say, Israel or [name your preferred comparator] is appalling just doesn't register. That we have e.g. a handful of ships many of which are out of action and when the few serviceable vessels are actually deployed they are under-armed, doesn't seem to matter. There appears to be no acknowledgement that there should be an agreed minimum military capability appropriate to an increasingly unstable world and then funds made available to achieve that capability. There also appears to be no acknowledgement that a credible military both deters hostile adventurism and provides reassurance to allies and trading partners resulting in increased influence and trade opportunities.

[GreenXCode]

Agreed, but we have a bigger challenge or management opportunity depending upon your appetite for yukspeak...:yuk:


Most of the UK's modern military (on land and at sea) has operated with air (and space) supremacy since 1990, on land at divisional or brigade level, no higher.:=


SDSR18 - The elephant in the room. What is the UK's capability and intent to execute operations against a near-peer competitor at scale? :mad:


From my humble perspective we are in a new 'fiddling while Rome burns moment' when most actors in Middle East view their adversaries as existential threats. Western democracies are 28 years into the next 100-year war but their politicians (US-exempt) do not have that view :ugh:.

[Melchett01]

This is the standard response to anyone querying the state of our armed forces. It's as if the government believes that spending 2% of GDP is an end - or an answer - in itself and not the capability which is or is not achieved. The fact that vast sums are wasted or that the achieved bang for the buck compared to, say, Israel or [name your preferred comparator] is appalling just doesn't register. That we have e.g. a handful of ships many of which are out of action and when the few serviceable vessels are actually deployed they are under-armed, doesn't seem to matter. There appears to be no acknowledgement that there should be an agreed minimum military capability appropriate to an increasingly unstable world and then funds made available to achieve that capability. There also appears to be no acknowledgement that a credible military both deters hostile adventurism and provides reassurance to allies and trading partners resulting in increased influence and trade opportunities.

What you've just said! We used to laugh at Air Forces only getting tens of hours per year, Sqns and Regts whose paper capabilities far exceeded actual capabilities and politicians whose rhetoric was more a work of fiction.

I fear we are now not far off being in that very boat, made even worse by a risk aversion and political correctness that hampers our abilities even further. My old history teacher used to tell us that in the event of WW3, we might last a week if we were lucky and were effectively just a stalling device until the US could mobilise. That was when we had several times the size of forces we have now. How long do you think we would last these days?

But at least we spend 2%. I wonder how much of that 2% makes it through to front line capability.

[Torquelink]

I fear we are now not far off being in that very boat, made even worse by a risk aversion and political correctness that hampers our abilities even further. My old history teacher used to tell us that in the event of WW3, we might last a week if we were lucky and were effectively just a stalling device until the US could mobilise. That was when we had several times the size of forces we have now. How long do you think we would last these days?

I don't know what the answer is but part of it ought to be in educating the general public as to the true state of the military. I know it's the standard assumption that the populace at large cares only about health, social services and education but that's partly because politicians only focus on those, admittedly important, issues. Most people probably believe the BS that because we have the "fifth largest military expenditure in the world" or whatever, we have a truly fit for for purpose military. If they really understood how limited and fragile is our capability vs emerging threats, they may actually actively support greater expenditure. But as this would just make life uncomfortable for politicians, they aren't inclined to support such an education of the public and instead continue to make hollow announcements about 2% etc. The real issue is that it is inevitable, at some point, that our armed forces will once again be forced into a situation for which they are totally under-equipped and lives will be lost as a result. Which politician will put their hand up and take the blame for that I wonder?

[Buster15]

As someone who has worked on a number of military programmes, aviation and naval I take the defence of our nation seriously.

I like most people have seen the progressive rundown of our airforce and navy (no experience of the Army) to the extent that we are no longer able to even do the bare minimum.
Risking the safety of our nation is not clever or responsible. What you sow you shall reep and I sincerely hope that we will not regret leaving ourselves so weak and vulnerable.

[Arclite01]

I have actually said for a long while that up to now we have been lucky and by fighting wars or actions against third class enemies (equipment - not people) we have been successful and lucky.

If we ever ended up fighting against people on a similar level of equipment to ourselves I think we would suddenly find that we may get a bit of a bashing. I'm not saying that I want to lose (who does ?) but that if this happened it might just wake up people in Government and Joe Public to the reality of our true position regarding equipment and facilities.

By then of course it may be too late.............

Looking into Europe the French appear to be becoming the big Defence Player in the region both in terms of equipment and capability............ Nelson and Wellington would be turning in their respective graves I'm sure..........

Arc

[Jabba_TG12]

And of course, all of you lot wrote to the papers while you were serving to complain about cuts...
Oh hang on, you didn’t. Maybe that was because as a serving officer/airman/soldier you had a duty to support the elected representatives of the people, regardless of whether you agreed with them or not.
Once retired, you are of course free to express whatever views you wish. Maybe that is exactly what the Admiral is doing.

Its not a case of writing to the damned papers about it. Its about effing inspiration and Leadership and Command, for crying out loud. If you as a Very Senior Commander have either misgivings or concerns about being able to deliver what your rank, your position and your appointment charges you with delivering, when there is at least one hand tied behind your back, it is your responsibility to either do something about it or speak the hell up and say so.

Unless you give more of a toss about your career and your place in the House Of Lords than you do for those in your command. Which, in recent years with very few notable exceptions, is mainly the way it has been going. The paucity of leadership is frankly embarrassing.

[tucumseh]

‘If, after attempting unsuccessfully to persuade those in power of their needs, the defence chiefs of staff are to remain silent, this would entail a serious breach of one of the cardinal principles of leadership; namely, the integrity of command. Most officers understand that, in any military organisation, the man at the top must remain loyal to the men at the bottom if he is to command their respect; if he cannot do that with a clear conscience, he should resign’.
(The late Rear Admiral Ron Holley RN, CB)

[Jabba_TG12]

‘If, after attempting unsuccessfully to persuade those in power of their needs, the defence chiefs of staff are to remain silent, this would entail a serious breach of one of the cardinal principles of leadership; namely, the integrity of command. Most officers understand that, in any military organisation, the man at the top must remain loyal to the men at the bottom if he is to command their respect; if he cannot do that with a clear conscience, he should resign’.
(The late Rear Admiral Ron Holley RN, CB)






Absobloodylutely. :D:D

[Torquelink]

So why isn't there a professional lobby group running a long term campaign in the media - especially social media - constantly reminding the populace at large that our defences are woeful and need to be prioritised? Every time some politician spouts the usual "2%, fifth largest budget blah blah" nonsense, the same outfit would hit back with the actual facts such that defence begins to creep up the priority concerns of voters at large. Once politicians see there are votes in it, funds will follow. Such a course absolutely should not be necessary but, regrettably, that may be the only way of getting some serious attention - and funding - applied to the matter.

[Buster15]

So why isn't there a professional lobby group running a long term campaign in the media - especially social media - constantly reminding the populace at large that our defences are woeful and need to be prioritised? Every time some politician spouts the usual "2%, fifth largest budget blah blah" nonsense, the same outfit would hit back with the actual facts such that defence begins to creep up the priority concerns of voters at large. Once politicians see there are votes in it, funds will follow. Such a course absolutely should not be necessary but, regrettably, that may be the only way of getting some serious attention - and funding - applied to the matter.

Quite agree. I have written to my MP on a number of occasions raising the issue of the progressive rundown of the RAF in particular.
Unfortunately, his responses were all the same - simply restating the government position despite me asking for his views.
As a result I wrote to the Secretary of state for Defence. After waiting for months all I got was a pre printed letter stating that I should raise my concern with my MP!!!
I will keep trying but would urge other PPRUNEers to write to their MP.

[Torquelink]

Quite agree. I have written to my MP on a number of occasions raising the issue of the progressive rundown of the RAF in particular.
Unfortunately, his responses were all the same - simply restating the government position despite me asking for his views.
As a result I wrote to the Secretary of state for Defence. After waiting for months all I got was a pre printed letter stating that I should raise my concern with my MP!!!
I will keep trying but would urge other PPRUNEers to write to their MP.

I did exactly the same: wrote both to my MP and the Defence Secretary with, predictably, exactly the same results as you - and until the issue becomes of wider concern, that's all we'll ever get.

I do find it strange that, for example, at the very least the defence industry, ex-service organisations and other concerned parties have not managed to set up a professional "defence truth" group to educate the population on defence actualities and to respond robustly to the usual platitudes put out by politicians. I rather thought that RUSI might do the job but apparently not.

[Not_a_boffin]

I do find it strange that, for example, at the very least the defence industry, ex-service organisations and other concerned parties have not managed to set up a professional "defence truth" group to educate the population on defence actualities and to respond robustly to the usual platitudes put out by politicians. I rather thought that RUSI might do the job but apparently not.


Well, there's this lot - set up to provide exactly that lobbying function and including eminences from RUSI and wider academia.


UKNDA - Home (http://www.uknda.org/)


Just not sure anyone is listening.....

[Heathrow Harry]

"So why isn't there a professional lobby group running a long term campaign in the media"

costs serious money

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The most recent AA Populus poll (monthly thing which seeks opinions on mainly motoring/transport matters) asked participants to list the three issues which caused them most concern from a list of about 15 - the economy, welfare, Brexit, education, NHS, environment, transport, the usual stuff. Defence wasn't even an option!

[Not_a_boffin]

The most recent AA Populus poll (monthly thing which seeks opinions on mainly motoring/transport matters) asked participants to list the three issues which caused them most concern from a list of about 15 - the economy, welfare, Brexit, education, NHS, environment, transport, the usual stuff. Defence wasn't even an option!

Always going to be influenced by whoever writes the list that gets presented to Joe Public. Hopefully that will change.

[Heathrow Harry]

I am hopeful that the poisoning case will start a few people thinking that maybe the world is more dangerous than they thought and spending a bit more on defence might be wise

[Torquelink]

costs serious money

BAE, RR, Babcock, Thales, Cobham etc have money. Maybe they just don't want to embarrass the government and would rather make as much as they can while they can from the shrinking pot and don't want to be seen to pressuring the government for more.

The most recent AA Populus poll (monthly thing which seeks opinions on mainly motoring/transport matters) asked participants to list the three issues which caused them most concern from a list of about 15 - the economy, welfare, Brexit, education, NHS, environment, transport, the usual stuff. Defence wasn't even an option!

Which perfectly illustrates why the defence lobby needs to get its act together. As HH says, maybe the Russians releasing nerve agents in the UK might do something . .

[Frostchamber]

On the (very cautiously) plus side, there is a bigger groundswell of support for more defence spending among MPs than I can remember, with even defence ministers going on the record as saying 2% of GDP isn't enough. I'm not starry eyed about what that will mean in practice but I think there is at least a reasonable prospect of some form of uptick in defence spend coming out of the current review. We'll find out at the time of the NATO summit in July.

[Training Risky]

And of course, all of you lot wrote to the papers while you were serving to complain about cuts... Oh hang on, you didn’t.

Yes we did. I, and many other JOs, used to write to the papers with our names and addresses supplied. Hang the consequences. Funny though, none of our letters were ever published or even acknowledged, and we were not even dobbed in to the rozzers/snowdrops for Sedition!

Maybe that was because as a serving officer/airman/soldier you had a duty to support the elected representatives of the people, regardless of whether you agreed with them or not.

I have just checked and re-checked my scroll, and yep, it mentions the Queen and Air Officers set over me, but nothing about elected representatives/snake-oil salesmen (delete as required).:rolleyes:

[Chinny Crewman]

From The Times today 22 March 2018. Managing expectations?

“The armed forces must be ready to slay some “sacred cows” to free up cash for new and more deployable technologies, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence has said.

Stephen Lovegrove did not specify which pieces of military equipment he had in mind but said that some capabilities were not deployed very often or were perhaps no longer able to keep the military personnel using them safe from modern threats.

It is the first time a senior official has indicated in public that difficult choices will probably have to be made as part of a review of the armed forces that will conclude in July, unless there is a big enough increase in the defence budget to meet all of the department’s costs.

“If we are going to invest in new, highly destructive technologies, that is going to come at a cost,” Mr Lovegrove, the permanent secretary, said during a question and answer session at the Strand Group, King’s College London, after a lecture on Tuesday evening.

“We need to be rather more ruthless, unless there is to be more money, about getting rid of some of the [capabilities] that are actually deployed less often or [are] incapable of being deployed” because of concerns over safety, he said. “I think we do have some of those capabilities and we need to be prepared to slay the odd sacred cow.”

Potential “sacred cows” could include the army’s fleet of Warrior armoured fighting vehicles that have yet to receive a much needed upgrade, according to a defence expert. The vulnerability of tracked vehicles to anti-tank missiles has been demonstrated in recent weeks in the northern Syrian city of Afrin where a number of Turkish tanks have been destroyed. There is no suggestion that Britain is considering scrapping its Challenger 2 main battle tanks.

Another capability that could be vulnerable is the navy’s amphibious assault ships, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion. The landing craft were singled out as potential sacrifices last year.

Cutting a whole capability is a more efficient way to make savings than retaining the capability on a reduced scale.

Mr Lovegrove had been responding to a question about whether he thought the Royal Navy, army and Royal Air Force should be merged to some degree to reduce costs. He declined to be drawn on such an idea but said that efforts were under way to reduce duplication in parts of defence. He cited as an example the helicopters operated by the army and the RAF.

The senior civil servant, who has previously said that the MoD needs to find £20 billion in efficiencies over the next decade, described his department’s savings targets as challenging.“

My highlights. Interesting (?) times ahead.

[Heathrow Harry]

That's a classic warming up shot............ AFV's, Assualt ships, Helicopters......

spread the pain across all the services

and his shot about capabilities not deployed recently gives us a good guide to what may be on the block... tho' I;m surprised they are going to keep the MBT's.....

[Training Risky]

Maybe the old-boys power of the Cavalry in Horseguards has some clout to save the MBTs?

I would love to see how much more integration of AH and SH the civil servants think they can achieve, in addition to JHC and all the joint postings between fleets...:rolleyes:

Maybe they believe that one set of engineers can maintain all AH/SH/floaty stuff at one big airbase outside Birmingham. Look good on a balance sheet at least...:ugh:

[melmothtw]

...efforts were under way to reduce duplication in parts of defence. He cited as an example the helicopters operated by the army and the RAF.

It's not looking good for the army's Wildcats. In the options for cuts leaked last year, two of the three solutions included axing the Wildcats, I seem to recall. The Puma folks must be feeling a little vulnerable, also.

[Torquelink]

“We need to be rather more ruthless, unless there is to be more money, about getting rid of some of the [capabilities] that are actually deployed less often or [are] incapable of being deployed” because of concerns over safety, he said. “I think we do have some of those capabilities and we need to be prepared to slay the odd sacred cow. . . .

Another capability that could be vulnerable is the navy’s amphibious assault ships, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion. The landing craft were singled out as potential sacrifices last year.”

So, suddenly, a capability which previously was regarded as a core part of our defence capabilities becomes an expendable "sacred cow". How is it that some mandarin can make such a statement and it not be challenged in the wider media? Surely a major part of the remit for a blue water navy is to facilitate the taking - or retaking - of territory. If you don't have an amphibious capability that naval raison d'etre is lost.

The mandarins focus should be on finding the money, not slaughtering sacred cows.

[Heathrow Harry]

Thats the whole point - a similar one as made by an ex Adrmiral a couple of weeks ago

If the money isn't there then what we've always thought of as core comptencies will be lost

Mandarins don't find the money - politicians do - I'm sure he's trying to keep as much going as possible but eventually you have to cut otherwise you can't do anything. We gave up on East of Suez, Battleships, strategic bombers and even Carriers - all for the same reason

[Frostchamber]

The Perm Sec didn't specify what the "sacred cows" are that may now be vulnerable. But I wouldn't be surprised if in order to get a deal out of the Chancellor, something has to be offered up even if some more money is made available overall. Amphibs may now be too tricky politically, but I suspect Warrior upgrade could be at risk.

[tucumseh]

incapable of being deployed because of concerns over safety

It won't have escaped the beancounters that this was the stated reason why Nimrod MRA4 was scrapped, which they will see as a success. Swift call to DG Safety. Please forward SI reports involving equipment with no valid safety case.

[[email protected]]

It's not looking good for the army's Wildcats. In the options for cuts leaked last year, two of the three solutions included axing the Wildcats, I seem to recall. The Puma folks must be feeling a little vulnerable, also.Since DE&S announced £100 million investment in Puma 2 in their last monthly comic, I should think the Wildcat force should be very nervous indeed.

[Buster15]

BAE, RR, Babcock, Thales, Cobham etc have money. Maybe they just don't want to embarrass the government and would rather make as much as they can while they can from the shrinking pot. .

Rolls Royce actually makes very little from UK MoD. Defence business is now a minority sector.
By far and away Civil Aviation dominates their business.

[tigerfish]

Why is everyone so worried? We have two brand new aircraft carriers! Yes,I accept that we don't actually have any aircraft to fly off them, Oh and if we manage to crew them both up we won't have enough sailors to man our frigates! But thats not a problem, I'm sure that everyone will be jolly nice to us if we show them those carriers. And we Will get some suitable aircraft one day won't we? Perhaps the Americans can lend us some of their lovely Harriers if things look bad!

TF

[Melchett01]

From The Times today 22 March 2018. Managing expectations?

“The armed forces must be ready to slay some “sacred cows” to free up cash for new and more deployable technologies, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence has said.

Stephen Lovegrove did not specify which pieces of military equipment he had in mind but said that some capabilities were not deployed very often or were perhaps no longer able to keep the military personnel using them safe from modern threats.

Jesus H Christ, does this man ever learn?

Let’s get rid of capability we never use. Like the CBRN Regiment? And just look how that turned out. Nimrod MPA? Clearly as an island nation we have no need of such a capability. These may not have been his call, but the lessons from those decisions are clear. A global expeditionary capability and top tier status needs investment. Or do we no longer need to physically defeat enemies and hold ground? Not a view that Putin, Xi or our US and NATO allied subscribe to last time I checked.

The myopic incompetence of the managers - they aren’t leaders - is quite simply astonishing. Of course there will be no reduction in demand, just fewer people expected to do more with old kit not designed for the job. Does it really take a significant military loss before they actually bother to invest in the military? Of course it’s a lot easier when neither they nor their sons & daughters will have to deal with the fallout.

Incandescent doesn’t begin to describe it! Do the job you’re paid to do and fight for the Department rather than rolling over and dismantling it! And if you can’t put a case together then step aside for someone who can.

[Buster15]

Jesus H Christ, does this man ever learn?

Let’s get rid of capability we never use. Like the CBRN Regiment? And just look how that turned out. Nimrod MPA? Clearly as an island nation we have no need of such a capability. These may not have been his call, but the lessons from those decisions are clear. A global expeditionary capability and top tier status needs investment. Or do we no longer need to physically defeat enemies and hold ground? Not a view that Putin, Xi or our US and NATO allied subscribe to last time I checked.

The myopic incompetence of the managers - they aren’t leaders - is quite simply astonishing. Of course there will be no reduction in demand, just fewer people expected to do more with old kit not designed for the job. Does it really take a significant military loss before they actually bother to invest in the military? Of course it’s a lot easier when neither they nor their sons & daughters will have to deal with the fallout.

Incandescent doesn’t begin to describe it! Do the job you’re paid to do and fight for the Department rather than rolling over and dismantling it! And if you can’t put a case together then step aside for someone who can.

I admire your passion my friend; something I share.
While our world is a far more dangerous place than even the Cold War era, the general public seems to have almost no interest in our defence. Their mobile phones are far more interesting. I fear it will take a nasty incident to bring our wafer thin armed forces capability back into their conciseness and I exclude the current nerve agent issue from that.

[Finningley Boy]

This is very much the kind of country we are. The NHS and welfare budgets will continue to soak up everything regardless. Not that I'm averse to spending on such concerns, however, it would appear that its the only thing that gets headlines, if for example increases in funding are not as much as what Labour demand. at a time when Defence and Security concerns are quite high should the Government dare to increase by even the smallest of margins defence spending the very next day LBC will have a debate on why we maintain an Army at all? Asking simplistic and glib questions about just who is about to invade us anyway. As we all know, defence arrangements and posture are all about avoiding such matters ever materialising. Indeed, the NHS regardless of how much financial bloat it suffers from will be wheeled out as an acute case of anorexia, suffering cuts to funds while defence, often confused with the arms industry, carry on unaffected by austerity. Absolute nonsense but there you go.

FB

[Heathrow Harry]

well TBH the UK defence industry which has also a track record of swallowing vast sums of money with appalling management are the people who a lot of any cash goes to

but I 'm starting to think we're going to have to lose a war, or come damn close, before we change the minds of the public

[Torquelink]

Rolls Royce actually makes very little from UK MoD. Defence business is now a minority sector.
By far and away Civil Aviation dominates their business.

True but RR also powers all major surface ships and subs. Must have a massive vested interest in making the pie bigger . .

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Do you really think it would be appropriate and acceptable to the public if defence contractors lobbied for more business?

Anyway - the National Security Capability Review (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-capability-review-nscr) has now been published.

The National Security Council commissioned a focused National Security Capability Review (NSCR) in support of ongoing implementation of the 2015 National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review.

The NSCR includes a new national security doctrine, the Fusion Doctrine. The NSCR updates the SDSR’s assessment of the challenges likely to drive UK security priorities over the next decade, sets out our Global Britain vision and values, and the actions we are taking as a result of the review. It also includes the second annual report on progress against the commitments made in SDSR 2015.

[Heathrow Harry]

WEBF - is there an Engish translation of that statement??.........

a quick scan of the document suggests not a single issue of long term sustainability, substantial recruitment failures and lack of resources is addressed

It's a regurgitation of Ministerial statements and MoD PR releases ..

Awful........

[ORAC]

The Times: Military needs £17bn extra a year, say MPs

Britain must look to spend another £17 billion a year on defence to ensure that the armed forces can deter and respond to the full range of threats, a parliamentary report recommends today.

The defence select committee said that a review now under way must come with a “firm and sustainable” funding settlement so that it can avoid the same fate as past reviews, which have unravelled because of insufficient cash. The committee urged Theresa May, who announced yesterday that government spending on the NHS would grow by £20 billion a year, to increase defence funding to a level “approaching the figure of 3 per cent of GDP which the United Kingdom still maintained as late as the mid-Nineties”.

Britain is one of only five Nato member states to meet the alliance’s minimum requirement of defence spending of 2 per cent of national income. Pushing the present figure of 2.14 per cent of GDP to 3 per cent would be the equivalent of more than £17 billion a year, based on official data. This would “place our defence policy on a sustainable basis to meet new threats and fill existing financial ‘black holes’ ”, Julian Lewis, the Conservative chairman of the committee, said. “Defence is constantly described as the first duty of government,” he said. “The MDP [modernising defence programme] is the government’s opportunity to show that it means what it says.”

The MPs praised Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, for taking the Ministry of Defence out of a cross-Whitehall security review last year. The national security capability review, headed by Sir Mark Sedwill, the national security adviser, would not have enabled the MoD to request an increase in funding from the Treasury — which it needs to fund plans set out in a 2015 review of defence. Instead, defence chiefs were forced to draw up options for deep cuts to the Royal Navy, army and Royal Air Force to balance the books. Mr Lewis said that the process would “have resulted in further disastrous cuts to the armed forces”.

Defence sources fear that the subsequent modernising defence programme launched by Mr Williamson will be a “fudge” unless he is able to secure funding from Philip Hammond, the chancellor. The two men are due to discuss the issue tomorrow.

In their report, the MPs recommended that the MDP produce a “menu” of military requirements, with an estimated cost of the capabilities listed. “The government, and the country, will then be able to see the scale of what it is necessary to invest in defence,” the report said. The MPs said that increased investment was particularly required in enhancing Britain’s ability to track and confront enemy submarines; enabling the navy to fire cruise missiles from frigates or destroyers; and ensuring that the army was able to deploy a war-fighting division. This requires the target size of the regular army not to be cut below 82,000. It is already some 5,000 soldiers below strength.

The report highlighted serious holes in the army’s fighting power, which would leave it vulnerable in a conflict against an adversary such as Russia. “There are serious deficiencies in the quantities of armour, armoured vehicles and artillery available to the British Army,” it said. The report said investment must ensure that the military was able to exploit new technologies as well as use more legacy equipment to remain effective.

[melmothtw]

It's fine, the Brexit dividend will pay for for it.

[tucumseh]

In their report, the MPs recommended that the MDP produce a “menu” of military requirements, with an estimated cost of the capabilities listed.

Are they going to spend years reinventing the wheel, or dig out the permanent LTC instructions last used in 1987?

[Heathrow Harry]

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#_idTextAnchor043

68.We have recently reported on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme.147 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-069) In that report, we accepted assurances from the MoD and from the manufacturer Lockheed Martin that a number of reported developmental problems were being addressed and we look forward to being kept updated on them. We reiterate our view that the MoD’s refusal to disclose cost estimates for the F-35 to Parliament is unacceptable and risks undermining public confidence in the programme. As well as providing greater clarity on this matter, the Department should also use the MDP as an opportunity to make clear whether it remains its policy to buy the intended complement of 138 aircraft and what mix of variants it now envisages purchasing for the remainder.148 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-068)

69.A key component of anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations, mentioned above in the maritime section, is the airborne ASW capability delivered by maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). The UK is re-establishing its long-range MPA capability with the purchase of nine Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft from the United States. We have received detailed written evidence from former RAF officers with extensive experience of ASW operations who argue that the intended aircraft and crew provision for the MPA force is too low to fulfil the range of tasks under its responsibility. Unrealistic assumptions have been made about the ability of NATO allies to contribute to MPA provision and that at least 16 aircraft and a higher crewing requirement is needed to attain the necessary coverage.149 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-067)

70.The UK has no substantial missile defence capability.150 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-066) The 2015 SDSR recognised the threat from state and non-state actors acquiring increasingly sophisticated missile technology. Commitments were made to invest in a ground-based ballistic missile defence (BMD) radar system to enhance NATO’s BMD Network, and to investigate the potential of Type 45 destroyers taking on a BMD role.151 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-065) Answers to written questions152 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-064) have indicated that these capabilities are still in their early developmental stages. The Department should make clear in the MDP its proposed way forward on BMD, including on both radars and potential interceptors, whether in a UK or combined NATO context. In addition, the Department should consider how it will address the need for point defence—including against cruise missiles—at key installations in the UK, not least the principal RAF airbases

71.The Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) capability provided by the RAF’s E-3D Sentry fleet has been allowed to decline. The 2015 SDSR committed the RAF to keeping the fleet in service until 2035,153 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-063) but the E-3D aircraft are no longer maintained and upgraded to the required avionics standards, and flying hours in recent years have been substantially reduced. AWACS provide airborne surveillance and battle management capability over extended range, crucial in a complex airspace contested by peer adversaries. Recent reports indicate that a replacement for Sentry is being considered as part of the MDP.154 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-062) The full range of available options including (but not confined to) an upgrade of the E-3D Sentry aircraft, should be considered by the RAF to restore its AWACS capability.

72.The ability of aircraft to penetrate sophisticated enemy air defence systems must be addressed. The RAF’s principal anti-radar suppression of enemy air defence (SEAD) weapon, designed to target and neutralise enemy air defence systems, was abandoned in 2013.155 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-061) The advanced capability of the F-35 may compensate for this, but the safety of the non-stealth aircraft also still in service—such as Typhoon—must also be considered.

[Onceapilot]

Yes, interesting Harry! And, the report states that it makes no attempt to address the relative importance of UK Defence capabilities, just highlight the Headline issues! Pity. I would have said it is more important to highlight the relative importance of capabilities and identify where greater capability is required, not just mush about, saying "this and that", as they do. Weak. :oh:

OAP

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/21/williamson-losing-fight-with-treasury-for-rise-in-defence-spending

Williamson losing fight with Treasury for rise in defence spending

The defence secretary, Gavin Williamson (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/gavin-williamson), is unlikely to receive any increase in defence spending in the coming year in spite of waging a relentless political campaign against the Treasury, according to Whitehall sources.

Williamson is scheduled to meet chancellor Philip Hammond in the next fortnight in a renewed attempt to secure concessions ahead of a Nato summit in Brussels (https://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2018/jun/21/jens-stoltenberg-nato-speech-lancaster-house-donald-trump) on 11 and 12 July. But a source familiar with the negotiations said there is no chance of the Treasury, faced with a promised rise in NHS spending and other demands on the budget, conceding any more cash to the Ministry of Defence (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/ministry-of-defence).

Williamson met Hammond and Theresa May on Tuesday to discuss the results of a year-long defence review scheduled to be announced before the Nato summit (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/25/mod-launch-uk-defence-review-gavin-williamson). But the meeting broke up without him securing any promises of more cash. He also met the chief secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, but that too ended without him wringing any more funding.......

Williamson’s intense politicking, backed by a vocal group of Conservative backbenchers, is beginning to grate with May and Hammond, according to a source, who added that while they were sympathetic to the needs of the military they had become irritated by his tactics. The MoD is still hoping to secure some more money in the next few weeks, and, failing that, in the autumn. However, the source said the best the MoD could hope for was a token rise in spending in autumn or early next year, though nothing close to the billions Williamson was seeking.A second Whitehall source said: “It is clear the Treasury do not want to splash cash around.”

With the government close to announcing the outcome of the public pay review, Williamson is also pushing for a recommendation of an inflation-beating 3% for the forces to be honoured in full. While the Treasury is reported to be sympathetic to a rise for the military (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/28/armed-forces-need-pay-rise-to-protect-recruitment-minister), it is concerned about the impact of pay rises across the public sector and looking for a compromise from Williamson. The Treasury has apparently suggested meeting the 3% “in spirit”, perhaps with compromises over the three-year period......

[Onceapilot]

Quote: "Williamson losing fight with Treasury for rise in defence spending"

Quite agree ORAC. TBH, I feel that the UK should drop the expeditionary warfare carrier lark and instead, concentrate on the important defence capabilities with strength in some depth. There is no problem with having supporting capabilities for the USA but, the concept that the UK can project it's own effective carrier force is misguided with our limited budget.

OAP

[Heathrow Harry]

Today's "times" says May refused to commit to retaining "first Tier Military status" this week........................

[pr00ne]

And 10 Downing Street immediately commented that ..."no she didn't say that".

[pr00ne]

OAP,

If the UK were to concentrate upon what you propose then we would effectively become another Ireland armed forces wise, with all of our resources devoted to the services who really effect and counter the only proper threat to the UK, that being from the actions of terrorist groups associated with extremism and lunatic individuals. As to the UK not having the budget to project it's own effective force, why not with the world's 5th largest defence budget and the largest in Europe stemming from the 5th largest economy in the world?
But don't worry, if you voted for Brexit then you are assisting in changing that!

[Onceapilot]

And 10 Downing Street immediately commented that ..."no she didn't say that".

Proone. Please quote your source and the wording when contradicting reported statements. Your comment here might be interesting but, without the reference of some sort, we can't tell what comment you refer to or, if it was actually made or is fake news?

OAP

[Pontius Navigator]

And 10 Downing Street immediately commented that ..."no she didn't say that".
I understood her to mean what constitutes 1st tier with a sub-text of either 'are we doing too much' or 'are we in danger of not doing enough '? I n other words the media spin was different intended.

[glad rag]

OAP,

If the UK were to concentrate upon what you propose then we would effectively become another Ireland armed forces wise, with all of our resources devoted to the services who really effect and counter the only proper threat to the UK, that being from the actions of terrorist groups associated with extremism and lunatic individuals. As to the UK not having the budget to project it's own effective force, why not with the world's 5th largest defence budget and the largest in Europe stemming from the 5th largest economy in the world?
But don't worry, if you voted for Brexit then you are assisting in changing that!
Damn right!
We have to sort out country first, and that doesn't mean being a convienent poodle.

[Onceapilot]

OAP,

If the UK were to concentrate upon what you propose then we would effectively become another Ireland armed forces wise, with all of our resources devoted to the services who really effect and counter the only proper threat to the UK, that being from the actions of terrorist groups associated with extremism and lunatic individuals. As to the UK not having the budget to project it's own effective force, why not with the world's 5th largest defence budget and the largest in Europe stemming from the 5th largest economy in the world?
But don't worry, if you voted for Brexit then you are assisting in changing that!

Proone. This is a weak post that is addressed to me but totally misrepresents any of my posted comments.

OAP

[Onceapilot]

Damn right!
We have to sort out country first, and that doesn't mean being a convienent poodle.

GR. You also quoting my post and seem to endorse further misrepresentation of my opinions. I would be grateful if you would desist.

OAP

[Lima Juliet]

Well this could get interesting if true!

Give me £20billion or I'll bring you down: Defence Secretary?s astonishing threat to PM | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5878221/Give-20billion-Ill-bring-Defence-Secretarys-astonishing-threat-PM.html)Give me £20billion or I'll bring you down: Defence Secretary’s astonishing threat to Theresa May in bitter row over military cuts

Formidable array of political and military figures are lining up behind Gavin Williamson in his power struggle with No 10
He has warned the PM that if she did not commit an extra £20 billion to the Ministry of Defence then Tory MPs would vote down the next Budget
According to one source, Mr Williamson promised to ‘crush’ the Treasury over the issue

[Pontius Navigator]

Usual moderate and impartial source I see.

[Heathrow Harry]

what is clear is that almost every Tory minister can "threaten" the PM - and leak it............... Without a majority and with absolutely no idea of what she wants to do she is open to constant pressure

I have to say it's getting me down - god alone knows what it's doing to her

[Frostchamber]

I don't doubt for a minute that Williamson would have referenced the strength of backbench feeling on the issue and the extent of Tory backbench support for more defence spending - why wouldn't he. Beyond that, well yes it is the Daily Mail and they have papers to sell and they've done a good job of embroidering it into a much more inflammatory headline.

The "Williamson vs Hammond" angle being pushed by the papers is unhelpful though, as a good outcome for defence would be portrayed as a Hammond defeat. And Williamson presumably did himself and the whole thing no favours by roundly pissing off the Chancellor early on, by embarrassing him over the payment for MoD flights issue, just when he needed his goodwill.

We can only hope that those taking the decisions can rise above it all, but I'm not holding my breath.

[VinRouge]

Sounds more like williamson knows what the result would be and is choosing to damage apotential competitor for when the wheels come off. Its a win win for him whatever decision is made.

[NutLoose]

Something we haven't been for a while, its just taken them this long to waken up to the fact.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/britain-is-no-longer-a-tier-one-military-power/ar-AAz8giG

[Lyneham Lad]

Or, as Sir Max Hastings writes in The Times today - We need to tell the truth about defence. (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-need-to-tell-the-truth-about-defence-7nph2mgs3?shareToken=9f86c97c15d2b2a14e8ce5473041041d)

[FODPlod]

Or, as Sir Max Hastings writes in The Times today - We need to tell the truth about defence. (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-need-to-tell-the-truth-about-defence-7nph2mgs3?shareToken=9f86c97c15d2b2a14e8ce5473041041d)
This is the same gung-ho Max Hastings who, at his typically blinkered, fiercely pro-Army anti-everything else worst, labelled the Royal Navy as cowardly for not starting a shooting match (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230314/A-cowardly-Navy-cautious-SAS-Britains-humiliation-pirate-rabble.html) with Somali pirates holding hostages at gunpoint on board a yacht bobbing about on the ocean. He even got that wrong because it was a Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker on the scene, not a warship.

Having 'liberated' Port Stanley single-handed, he has conveniently forgotten which service delivered him to the Falklands and fought and died to protect him en route. Yet strangely, he sees little or no role for maritime capability, aircraft carriers, air superiority, CASD or much else the RN (or the RAF for that matter) has to offer. His eyes are firmly fixed on 'boots on the ground' to the exclusion of all else required to prepare the ground for them, deliver them, protect them, sustain them in theatre and provide them with vital intelligence.

[Onceapilot]

This is the same gung-ho Max Hastings who, at his typically blinkered, fiercely pro-Army anti-everything else worst, labelled the Royal Navy as cowardly for not starting a shooting match (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230314/A-cowardly-Navy-cautious-SAS-Britains-humiliation-pirate-rabble.html) with Somali pirates holding hostages at gunpoint on board a yacht bobbing about on the ocean. He even got that wrong because it was a Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker on the scene, not a warship.


Yes, I have let this sit for a while but did no one else read it? Typical MH, IMO. He tells Military stories but, has limited Military understanding. He certainly makes no coherent argument for all the points he raises in the "we need to tell the truth about defence" article. I won't debate any detail in his piece, because I do not think it covers the subjects in any way shape or form, except one point. Trident. I cannot understand how anyone who supports the Defence capability of the UK can fail to recognise the fantastic VFM and the backstop punch that Trident gives to UK Defence and status.

OAP

[gr4techie]

The Sunday Times 7 December 2003:

Hoon Poised for £2bn Cut in Forces (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-923014,00.html)

A number of senior officers, however, see the white paper as a chance to break out of the service’s historic regimental structure.

“Anybody who argues on emotional grounds for cap badges and so on doesn’t understand the needs of the army today,” a senior officer told a private Whitehall audience last week.

The army wants to move from a structure based on battalions of about 600 men to an emphasis on company-sized sub-units of about 120 men that can be more easily deployed.

I hope that bit is true and that someone has seen sense at last. The regimental system belongs in a museum, not in a modern army.

I'm sorry I disagree.

Are you going to get rid of all historical regimental and squadron nameplates and colours?
It would be sad to get rid of the Foot Guards Regiments or 617 Sqn and replace them with a number that has no history or tradition.
I appreciate the RAF is still young, but I believe being in a unit with a proud history and tradition is good for unit cohesion and ethos. It gives the troops a passion. I remember my Grandfather with a Scottish background saying he wanted to be in the Black Watch and not any other regiment.
I also believe that keeping historical units and traditions is respecting what those units went through and achieved. It teaches the youngsters, for example Army Barracks named after Napoleonic or Crimean battles, I've stayed in RAF accommodation named after RAF Victoria Cross recipients.

That Senior Officer appears to criticise "emotional attachment to cap badges" as a way to justify cutbacks and reductions in manpower.

[Heathrow Harry]

Well the Army only had numbered regiments to 1881 - then they changed to the County names so it isn't the end of the world - remember we ruled the world then.........................

Squadrons have only ever had numbers - the fame of any particular one has no relation to it's number TBH

When a lot of the Scots regiments have serious problems in recruiting and have to be filled up with Commonwealth citizens suggests the old County model is heading for the scrap heap anyway

[Pontius Navigator]

Squadrons have only ever had numbers - the fame of any particular one has no relation to it's number TBH
I disagree.
My first squadron 'leads the field' and still did in the 60s. It continued to do so since then. Many attributes and artefacts linked back to the war and beyond.
My second also had a distinguished wartime history and was a PFF sqn. It reflected none of this in the 60s and 70s.
My third, like the first, enjoyed a feeling of pride and morale ahead of the other sqns.
My last was notorious.

I contend that a sqn's morale and performance is enhanced by knowledge of its history ahead even than the charisma of its commander.
​​​

[Heathrow Harry]

I disagree.
My first squadron 'leads the field' and still did in the 60s. It continued to do so since then. Many attributes and artefacts linked back to the war and beyond.
My second also had a distinguished wartime history and was a PFF sqn. It reflected none of this in the 60s and 70s.
My third, like the first, enjoyed a feeling of pride and morale ahead of the other sqns.
My last was notorious.

I contend that a sqn's morale and performance is enhanced by knowledge of its history ahead even than the charisma of its commander.
​​​

But that has everything to do with its history and NOTHING to do with what ever number was originally allocated surely?

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/armed-forces-update-postpones-decisions-on-military-spending-vvsbhhggw

Armed forces update postpones decisions on military spending

An update on the future of the armed forces will contain no headline conclusions and no new money, The Times understands.

Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, will today instead outline commitments to buy the right equipment, deliver value for money and make the Ministry of Defence as cost-effective as possible, a Whitehall source said. “It will be a relatively dry update with more to come later,” the source said. A second source said the written statement would make clear that “we have dealt with key areas of work”.

The move falls far short of a fully funded plan for the army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, despite months of work by military chiefs, defence officials and the defence secretary to formulate a credible plan for defence.

The statement is likely to be met with disappointment but not surprise by MPs. The headline conclusions of the modernising programme should have been agreed by Theresa May and the chancellor Philip Hammond in a meeting with Mr Williamson before a Nato summit last week. However, the meeting never happened as Mrs May, consumed by Brexit, either ran out of time or decided not to make the time, according to three Whitehall sources.

Instead, tough decisions on the future of the military, which has at least a £20 billion hole in ambitions to buy warplanes, satellites, ships and submarines over the next decade, will not be made until autumn at the earliest.

It also means that a desire to announce an above-inflation pay rise for troops, which The Times understands has been recommended by an independent pay review body, is not expected before MPs break up for the summer. Clarity over pay had been expected by the end of June but was delayed amid uncertainty over the defence budget.

A failure to agree to give the MoD a minimum of an additional £2.5 billion a year would raise the prospect of another round of cuts to the armed forces. The MoD must also deliver billions of pounds in efficiency savings........

[Heathrow Harry]

This Government seems unable to decide on anything

when the PM has no ideas other than survival for its b own sake I guess we shouldn't be surprised

[Lima Juliet]

Two written statements expected today:

Secretary of State for Defence
4. Modernising Defence Programme - Update
5. Service Personnel

Keep an eye out here: https://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements

Also, the Defence Committees meet today:

Defence Sub-Committee
The Wilson Room, Portcullis House
9.30am (private)

followed by

Defence
The Wilson Room, Portcullis House 10.45am (private)

[Lima Juliet]

No pay rise then! Looks like September- which will mean October’s pay!

Modernising Defence
In January, together with the Prime Minister and Chancellor, I launched the Government’s Modernising Defence Programme (MDP). The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is now able to share our headline conclusions. Throughout the MDP, the Department has worked with colleagues across Whitehall, with academics, subject matter experts, allies and partners and ran a public consultation exercise.

The MDP was launched after the National Security Capability Review acknowledged the increasing security challenges we are facing. Its purpose was to deliver better military capability to meet the increasing threat environment and value for money in a sustainable and affordable way. Defence protects our people, projects our global influence, and promotes our prosperity. And, at this key moment as the UK leaves the European Union, Defence and the Armed Forces will continue to deliver security in Europe and further afield, helping to make Global Britain a reality.

Threats and risks to national security have diversified and become more complex since 2015. Although we anticipated many of the threats and risks we now face, we underestimated the pace at which they would intensify and combine to challenge UK national security at home and threaten the rules-based international order that has delivered peace, security and prosperity over many decades. And, we did not fully understand the ways in which they would interact with each other.

Alongside this, the character of warfare has changed since 2015. We are in a period of constant aggressive competition between states, often developing into undeclared confrontation and, in some cases, proxy conflicts. Technology, especially digital technology, is developing at a breath-taking pace, making pervasive many capabilities once only imagined in science fiction.

Our adversaries are working to take advantage of this contested environment by systematically identifying and exploiting our vulnerabilities and those of our allies and partners. Peer and near-peer states are investing heavily in both conventional and emerging technologies, and are increasingly adopting hybrid or asymmetric approaches to gain advantage. This has included attacking our digital networks and those of our allies, and operating in unconventional and legally questionable ways. Broader developments in the world including demographic change, increasing urbanisation, the risk of pandemics, resource and environmental pressures will all contribute to a global strategic context which will become more complex.

All this means that the challenges to our national security and prosperity – and to our allies’ and partners’ security and prosperity – are increasingly complex, ambiguous, destabilising and potentially catastrophic.

Work in the first phase of the MDP has reviewed this changing strategic context and how our Armed Forces need to be able to respond. We have reviewed our existing capability plans, and begun to shape new policy approaches and identify investment priorities, and through workstreams, we have developed a blueprint for a major programme of top-down transformative reform to defence.

In all of this, we have been guided by the three key roles that our Armed Forces should be able to fulfil in the 21st century:

1. Contribute to strengthening global security through our leading role in NATO, and provide the structures and capabilities to defend the UK;

2. Meet the challenges of the wider threats to international security and stability, including through operations and activities alongside our global allies and partners. Defence must be engaged and outward looking, meeting the challenges of our age, from state-based competition and confrontation, violent extremism and terrorism, instability and crises in Africa and Asia, illegal and irregular migration, serious and organised crime, to climate change and environmental disasters.

3. Act independently, when appropriate, to protect UK interests and citizens overseas, leading multi-national operations and developing strong defence relationships with partners around the world.

Headline conclusions
1. Our Armed Forces need to be ready and able to match the pace at which our adversaries now move.
The pace at which our adversaries can act against us has grown quickly since SDSR 2015. Today, our adversaries disguise their actions by launching attacks that are hard to attribute, or by operating below the conventional threshold for a decisive, collective response. Whilst our Armed Forces already protect us against these challenges every hour of every day, we need to be able to respond to this new character of warfare, both in the traditional land, sea and air domains, as well as in the new domains of space and cyber. The MDP will make sure that the Armed Forces can continue to protect our prosperity and security, whilst reinforcing Britain’s place in the world.

To defend our national security, we should make the best possible use of the unique mix of hard and soft power that makes the UK a major global actor: from our economic levers to our wider diplomatic and cultural influence on the world’s stage. This integrated, collective approach to national security is captured in the Government’s Fusion Doctrine. Defence has a vital and increasing role in underwriting it, including through contributing to deterring and disrupting hostile state activity, delivering the CONTEST counter-terrorism strategy in the UK and overseas, or supporting wider security and prosperity objectives.

The Armed Forces have a unique network of alliances and friendships spanning every corner of every continent. We have made significant progress in making Defence more ‘international by design’, and we will look at how we could do more. We have already strengthened relationships with key allies and partners, including through ambitious capability collaborations, and we will seek to go further still. We will consider our global defence network, to make sure we have the right military and civilian staff deployed around the world. We will seek to optimise our programme of world-class international education and training, which is so highly valued by our allies and partners, and gives the UK competitive advantage and strategic influence across the globe. And we will continue to lead multinational forces and deepen our relationships across the globe.

Most importantly, we need to make sure we can respond rapidly to future crises on our terms. Our elite and high-readiness forces are critical in this regard, enabled by collective training and our high-end exercise programme. We will consider how we can rebalance our training and equipment to mainland Europe, the Far East and the Middle East and review our overseas basing to improve our interoperability with allies and partners. NATO’s Readiness Initiative will also play an important role in this endeavour. Equally, our ability to respond rapidly will depend on an improved understanding and anticipation of the strategic confrontations that define this era: we will therefore build a Strategic Net Assessment capability in the MOD. Strategic Net Assessment looks across all dimensions of competition – political, economic, military, resources – to assess how the choices of both friends and foes may play out over the short, medium and long-term. Its conclusions can be used to develop more nuanced and better-informed strategy, so we can better anticipate our adversaries’ actions and counter them more effectively.

As outlined in SDSR 2015, protecting our security safeguards our prosperity, so our Armed Forces will continue to provide the assurance and reassurance for our global trade and development commitments, and support our ambitions for Global Britain. As we continue our commitment to Defence investment we will consider a much more agile approach to the development of future equipment, with a clear focus on the increasing flexibility required to maintain strategic advantage over our adversaries.

2. A fighting force fit for the challenges of the 21st century
We intend to modernise our force structure so that it is better able to meet the increasing threats we face. The key design principles of Joint Force 2025 are right; we want Armed Forces able to operate with agility and pace in the information age. Our Armed Forces need to be able to meet a full range of missions now and into the future. This includes, if necessary, warfighting operations under NATO Article 5 and further afield.

We need to be able to meet future threats and face down our adversaries to continue to protect our prosperity and security. We may need to accelerate elements of the programme to meet the most acute threats sooner. Equally, we might want to introduce new capabilities or equipment that provide significant advantage in the immediate term. We intend, in each case, to look to the right balance of conventional and novel capabilities to meet the threats we face.

Alongside this, we will consider how to improve our resilience, so that our networks and systems across defence are protected against cyber-attack and infiltration, and our submarines can continue to avoid detection. We will also strengthen our equipment, training and facilities, like the investment we are making in a Chemical Weapons Defence Centre to counter Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear threats like we saw in Salisbury and Amesbury. Through advancing our resilience we will make sure our forces and bases are better protected.

A fighting force fit for the challenges of the 21st century also means our Armed Forces need to be able to operate in the space domain. So, to guide future investment in our satellites and wider space capabilities we will publish a Space Strategy.

To operate effectively in the information age, we need ‘information advantage’. Conflicts of the future will increasingly be won and lost based on who uses information technology most effectively: sensors, computing, communication, cyber and machine learning, artificial intelligence and autonomy. We will consider how to enhance our ability to collect, analyse, disseminate and act very rapidly on the vast quantities of data that characterise the contemporary operating environment. That will allow us to understand how our adversaries are thinking, how they may choose to act against us, and how we can deter or defeat them.

We are also looking at how to update the way we fight. For much of the last two decades, the UK has been conducting or contributing to significant overseas operations, in Afghanistan, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Our adversaries have learned a lot about how we operate, and how they can disrupt our preferred methods. So, we are considering what a more active and dynamic approach to operations in all five domains – land, sea, air, space and cyberspace – should look like.

At the same time, we will consider how to modernise our approach to technology and innovation. By taking a more coordinated approach to technology and experimentation, with better central oversight, we may be able to pursue opportunities for modernisation more aggressively and accept higher levels of risk pursuing novel ideas. We intend to invest in a series of ‘Spearhead’ initiatives on key new technologies and increase our spending on innovation, science and technology. Pursuing this approach will allow us to become quicker at turning advances in research and development into strategic advantage. In support of this, we will publish a ‘Defence Technology Framework’, setting out the Department’s technology priorities so that we can focus efforts and guide strategy, investment and plans across Defence as a whole.

And we should also ensure that we use the combined talents of our Whole Force of Regulars, Reserves, civil servants and industry partners more effectively. The character of conflict and the world of work more generally are changing, so Defence will need to up-skill our people, harness the advantages offered by Reserves, and reflect the expectations of the modern workforce.

3. Transforming the business of Defence to deliver a robust, credible, modern and affordable force
We are re-setting and re-energising the way MOD is led, organised and managed, with clearer responsibilities and accountabilities to deliver better value for money. We will embrace approaches, processes, technologies and best practice with a proven track record of success elsewhere. We will encourage a culture of experimentation, and change our acquisition and commercial processes to better support the rapid and incremental adoption of new and emerging technologies.

To help create financial headroom for the additional modernisation, we will consider how to deliver greater efficiency by adopting ambitious, digitally-enabled business modernisation. In parallel, we will consider removing existing areas of overlap and duplication within our force structure and burden-sharing more effectively with allies and partners.

We intend to adopt a more collaborative and demanding approach to our relationship with industry, centred around an agreed set of productivity, efficiency, skills and innovation challenges that we need to meet together. At the same time, in the next stages of our work we will consider what we might do to grow even further the already considerable contribution that Defence makes to UK prosperity. The important work conducted by the Honourable Member for Ludlow, Philip Dunne MP, in his independent report can inform these considerations.

Conclusion
The first phase of the MDP has looked to set the direction we intend to take. It has clarified three key themes we should consider in the next phase: firstly, our Armed Forces need to be ready and able to match the pace at which our adversaries now move. Secondly, our Armed Forces need to be a fighting force fit for the challenges of the 21st century. And, finally, we need to transform the business of Defence to deliver a robust, credible, modern and affordable force.

The Prime Minister, Chancellor and I will continue to work closely throughout the next phase of the MDP, and I will keep the House updated as decisions are made.

We will continue to meet our commitment to our partners and maintain a full spectrum of nuclear, conventional and cyber capabilities to match our global ambition. With one of the largest Defence budgets in the world, and the highest in Europe, our Defence budget is increasing in real terms by £1 billion a year during this Parliament. The stage is now set for the next phase of this programme of work to ensure UK defence and our Armed Forces can continue to keep our country safe, our people and interests around the world secure, and help ensure that the UK can continue to play a major role on the world stage


Service personnel bit was on the already announced Scottish tax breaks due to Wee Jimmie Krankie’s mad cap public spending spree...

[Heathrow Harry]

A totally meaningless statement......

[Lima Juliet]

Possible news of station closures and pay today in written statements:

Secretary of State for Defence
5. A Better Defence Estate - Update
6. Education Support Fund
7. Ministry of Defence - Update
8. Provision of Equipment to the Jordanian Armed Forces

Updates to appear here: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/?page=1&max=20&questiontype=AllQuestions&house=commons%2clords&dept=11

[WingsofRoffa]

Possible news of station closures and pay today in written statements:

Secretary of State for Defence
5. A Better Defence Estate - Update
6. Education Support Fund
7. Ministry of Defence - Update
8. Provision of Equipment to the Jordanian Armed Forces

Updates to appear here: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/?page=1&max=20&questiontype=AllQuestions&house=commons%2clords&dept=11

2% increase in pay and a 0.9% one off payment.

A start at least.

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/uks-nuclear-deterrent-infrastructure-not-fit-for-purpose-say-mps

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news-parliament-2017/mod-nuclear-budget-report-published-17-19/

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Good find ORAC - the delays to nuclear submarine dismantling are hard to explain and can only cause problems - but what has it go to do with BREXIT causing problems with recruiting nuclear engineers - who need to be UK citizens with Developed Vetting?

[Melchett01]

Good find ORAC - the delays to nuclear submarine dismantling are hard to explain and can only cause problems - but what has it go to do with BREXIT causing problems with recruiting nuclear engineers - who need to be UK citizens with Developed Vetting?

Don’t be surprised, BREXIT is a nice ready made excuse with which to conceal decades of under-investment, mismanagement, lack of strategic thinking and general incompetence in the running of Defence. That most folk won’t know or understand the security requirements associated with this or many other areas is irrelevant. To be able to blame national security failings on the EU and BREXIT is a win win.

[Whenurhappy]

Don’t be surprised, BREXIT is a nice ready made excuse with which to conceal decades of under-investment, mismanagement, lack of strategic thinkinog and general incompetence in the running of Defence. That most folk won’t know or understand the security requirements associated with this or many other areas is irrelevant. To be able to blame national security failings on the EU and BREXIT is a win win.

almost 20 years ago I undertook contractor compliance work at Clyde, Rosyrh and Devonport. There was huge capital investment at Devonport on docks 10 and 11 for nuclear submarine maintenance, yet existing facilities at places like Coulport were falling apart. Infrastructure is only a sexy subject when its being built and open; sadly for the last 25 years the MOD, led by the incompetents at DW/DE/DIO, has not sort to maintain the built enviroent and outsourced new facilities to the lowest PFI bidder. Most of our new-built look like cheap ‘retail parks’.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Not so many years ago, every man and his dog seemed to argue that frigates, carriers, submarines, fighter aircraft, AWACS, armour were no longer needed, yet today:

1. The RAF Typhoon force is bust dealing with Russian incursions into UK airspace, contributes to NATO air policing, plays a role in NATO exercises like those in the Baltic, and continues the fight against the terrorists of Daesh.

2. The UK has committed a carrier group to NATO - including for the defence of maritime logistics and amphibious forces.

3. The amphibious forces are busy - both for NATO and national roles.

4. Submarines are busy.

5. The RAF ISTAR force continues to be much in demand, as does the Chinook force, which is supporting operations in the UK, exercises in the Baltic and HMS Queen Elizabeth's preparations for her WESTLANT 19 deployment, and the French in Mali.

6. British armour, as part of NATO, plays a role in NATO activities in the Baltic states.

7. In the Middle East:

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1148522369625051137

[Asturias56]

WEBF _ i realize you are big fan of all things RN and the carriers in particular but thanks for posting that list of activities..

I thought they were all at anchor in Pompey.......... ;)

[Out Of Trim]

What happened to number 7?

[pr00ne]

I have no recollection whatsoever of "every man and his dog" claiming anything remotely of the kind, so your list is merely a list of some of the things that some of the UK armed forces are doing...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Asturias56

Not so much a fan as a servant. I continue to be frustrated Reservist.

OOT

No 7 was the Twitter feed.

pr00ne

Do you know remember the years of anti RN, anti RAF, anti Typhoon/carrier/etc bile from the likes of Max Hastings? Or the way some posters on here insisted we did not need ASW helicopters, or fighter aircraft? Or the incompetent decision making of Dopey Dave in 2010? Or his shenanigans making promises to his back benchers about troop numbers that stopped both the RN and RAF getting a manpower uplift of 1500 of so people as part of SDSR 15?

[Asturias56]

I see Hunt is banging the drum for a bigger Navy - which is desperately needed IMHO - but of course he never says where the money will come from.............

[pr00ne]

WE BF,

Thankfully neither Max Hastings or "some posters on here" have any say in UK defence policy or procurement. Cameron in 2010 had a LOT of money to save, and the carrier/Harrier decision didn't result in anything adverse happening to the UK, so you could argue it was the right call at the time.

[pr00ne]

Asturia,

And, little reported in these parts, there was a direct quote from Jeremy Corbyn last week of "The UK armed forces need more ships, aircraft and people."

[Asturias56]

Well - he means jobs of course - but it really is awful how few ships ANY European country has - I think the whole of Europe (excluding Russia) has about 25% of the ships class for class that the USA has........

[WE Branch Fanatic]

pr00ne

In 2010 cuts were needed - and perhaps there was a case for the Harrier decision, but the STOVL/CTOL/STOVL debacle did cost a lot of money and made it a politically sensitive area which reduced the the Navy's ability to deal with the issue of skills for QEC/F-35B. The same cuts could have been made, even more money could have been saved, but without causing so much trouble. So much for politicians and ideas.

In 2015 both RAF and RN expected a manpower uplift. However, Cameron weaseled his way out of it by not upsetting backbenchers will Regimental Ties.

If only the politicians would pay more attention to detail - not just in defence, but education, health, BREXIT - you name it!

[Asturias56]

I see they';re sending Duncan, a T45, to the Gulf - so the UK will have 2 ships there "until Montrose returns for maintenance"

So that's 2 out of 19 surface combatant warships deployed............... talk about thinly spread..............

[ORAC]

When you don’t give pay rises to the pay is crap, the food and accommodation is crap, and you keep degrading the terms of service so the pension is crap - I’m not sure what you expect a series of rotating door ministers to do to change the situation....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/09/uk-army-combat-units-40-below-strength-as-recruitment-plummets

UK army combat units 40% below strength as recruitment plummets

[Bob Viking]

Maybe some or all of the recruitment adverts should start to target the key demographics. Young, working class men/boys. That’s who has traditionally filled the ranks of the Army.

I know the diversity targets are a good way of broadening the appeal of the Armed Forces to all demographics but you still need to get people through the door in the first place.

BV

[racedo]

I see Hunt is banging the drum for a bigger Navy - which is desperately needed IMHO - but of course he never says where the money will come from.............

He doesn't care as he will have no input in its implementation.

Interesting a comment from EU fishermen regarding brexit and a claim that will not be fishing in UK waters.

Response was "How are they going to stop us" and when told it will be by a "Fisheries protection vessel / RN Warship". They just responded "20 trawlers over a 1000 sq mile ocean area can not be all arrested and a single arrest means vessel has to escort trawler to shore. We are part of a fishery coop, therefore arrested trawler gets a share of what they other 19 catch."

[Asturias56]

Maybe some or all of the recruitment adverts should start to target the key demographics. Young, working class men/boys. That’s who has traditionally filled the ranks of the Army.

I know the diversity targets are a good way of broadening the appeal of the Armed Forces to all demographics but you still need to get people through the door in the first place.

BV

Yup - the women are too damn bright to want to join the PBI - they can get all the physical & verbal abuse, the 24/7 on duty and the boring routine by staying at home and having kids ................ these days people want more.

[Asturias56]

" We are part of a fishery coop, therefore arrested trawler gets a share of what they other 19 catch."

Presumably if the Brits confiscate the vessel they other 19 have to buy the guy who was caught a new vessel tho'?? if not I can see "co-operation" not lasting very long............

[Out Of Trim]

Instead of escorting Illegal fishing vessels to shore they could arrest the crew and sink the illegal vessel. Just need a brig to hold the illegal crews!

As for Army recruitment. Just end the useless Capita contract due to poor performance! They have proved to slow the recruitment process so much that many prospective recruits get tired of waiting and find something else to do. Bring the process back to the Army like the old days.

In fact get rid of all the out sourcing. It doesn't really save us anything and is detrimental to the services all round.

[SamYeager]

Interesting a comment from EU fishermen regarding brexit and a claim that will not be fishing in UK waters.

Response was "How are they going to stop us" and when told it will be by a "Fisheries protection vessel / RN Warship". They just responded "20 trawlers over a 1000 sq mile ocean area can not be all arrested and a single arrest means vessel has to escort trawler to shore. We are part of a fishery coop, therefore arrested trawler gets a share of what they other 19 catch."
Pity we can't do the same as the opposition in the Cod wars and just cut their nets without boarding but that would have required prior planning to obtain the necessary equipment to do it. :ugh: Mind you nowadays there's probably some H&S reason why we can't do it anyway. :rolleyes:

[racedo]

" We are part of a fishery coop, therefore arrested trawler gets a share of what they other 19 catch."

Presumably if the Brits confiscate the vessel they other 19 have to buy the guy who was caught a new vessel tho'?? if not I can see "co-operation" not lasting very long............

The coop is a "cooperative", where members have a share in the sucess or otherwise of the operation. Sieze vessels and what do you do with them ? Sell them ? Cooperatives are very successful in Europe, they were in UK at one time (ignoring Coop retail services ).

[racedo]

Instead of escorting Illegal fishing vessels to shore they could arrest the crew and sink the illegal vessel. Just need a brig to hold the illegal crews!
.

Yup I can just see EU sitting back and allow siezing and destruction of Spanish fishing boats at sea.

Mind you, they wouldn't need to get involved as 100 fishing boat chained together off Gibraltar with 5000 people blockading the land border and what happens. Spanish Govt not involved but you can be guaranteed they would not be rushing to do anything. Could put lots of naval vessels in to break it up but fisherman would be more than willing to lose nets to foul the vessels. They have a lot more fishing boats that can be used.

Who wins ? Hence be careful what you wish for.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

He doesn't care as he will have no input in its implementation.

Interesting a comment from EU fishermen regarding brexit and a claim that will not be fishing in UK waters.

Response was "How are they going to stop us" and when told it will be by a "Fisheries protection vessel / RN Warship". They just responded "20 trawlers over a 1000 sq mile ocean area can not be all arrested and a single arrest means vessel has to escort trawler to shore. We are part of a fishery coop, therefore arrested trawler gets a share of what they other 19 catch."

Why did you bring BREXIT (officially EU EXIT) and fisheries protection onto this thread?

Is a coop a legal entity? If so it can be prosecuted? I thought most fishing vessels were owned by companies, which can be prosecuted.

There are electronic means (such as AIS) to keep tabs on vessels. Hopefully you will agree that it would be disastrous for fish stocks and the wider maritime environment if vessels could fish in the UK EEZ without the RN (on behalf of DEFRA) or the SFPA having enforcement powers?

[racedo]

Why did you bring BREXIT (officially EU EXIT) and fisheries protection onto this thread?


Cutback have left 12 fishery protection vessels and few naval vessels to patrol waters close to UK. It is relevant as some will be running and saying we have a fishing industry and no foreign vessels and realise if it is just UK owned and operated vessels then little fish coming ashore.


Is a coop a legal entity? If so it can be prosecuted? I thought most fishing vessels were owned by companies, which can be prosecuted.

There are electronic means (such as AIS) to keep tabs on vessels.


Keeping tabs is easy assumming they never turned off, proving they fishing is something different. How exactly can you prove a Cod is caught in UK or EU waters ?

A Coop is a legal organisation owned by its members, UK fishermen had them.



Hopefully you will agree that it would be disastrous for fish stocks and the wider maritime environment if vessels could fish in the UK EEZ without the RN (on behalf of DEFRA) or the SFPA having enforcement powers?

It is a good job UK holders of quotas have been above the law. Oh wait maybe not.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Apart from the RN and Marine Scotland/SFPA - what is the make up of these vessels? Other authorities do inspections closer to shore. I am not surprised they have been cut - look at the Cuts to Border Force, the Police and Prison services, and so on.

There must be some possible technical fix so that the lime and location a boat puts her fishing gear in the water is logged, or for it to be mandatory to keep AIS turned on. AIS was intended for safety and security, but could be used as the starting point - I assume. I would have hoped Government would have looked into this.

I am well aware our own fishermen can be offenders. I have not looked aat that like, as we are all tired of listening to Micheal Gove.

[tucumseh]

Some years ago - 90s - the RN used to ask for a named MAFF (Fisheries) officer from Poole to go onboard their protection vessels during inspections. In a previous life he'd held a Master's ticket on supertankers, and it was the best free training the RN could wish for. His dad was well known as a glider pilot in WW2, having escaped and returned many times.

[Asturias56]

WEBF

The Uk currently has 2 River II and 3 River I Patrol boats run by the RN (there is also 1 River class in the Falklands) - these all have 30-40 crew and can land a helicopter

they also have Border Force vessels - 4 x Stan 4207 &1 x Telkka Patrol vessels (12 crew) plus 8 x Delta ARRC 190 small rescue craft (6 crew)

I guess they also deploy mine hunters etc if necessary

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Astrias56

Is that where the "twelve vessels" statement came from? The thing is, Border Force cannot do fishery protection - their vessels are too small, they do not have the training, and a busy. The RN on behalf of DEFRA and the Marine Management Organisation does fishery boardings/inspection in English, Welsh, and NI waters, but not routinely Scottish ones. Marine Scotland police fishing in Scottish waters

The RN Fishery Protection squadron also does national tasking - such as monitoring and escorting passing warships (and other vessels) of interest, helping the Police and Border Force with drug interceptions, keeping an eye on other unlawful activity at sea, helping deal with migrants in the Strait of Dover, and potentially anti pollution or counter terrorism roles.

The three Batch 1 River class replaced the older Island class. Their increased size means they can operate in rougher seas, and their mannnig system means they can spend large amounts of time at sea. a fourth one, Clyde, was ordered to act as a Falklands patrol vessel - modifications included an increase in size, a flight deck, and improved communications to worth with the Army and RAF down South.

One of them went to the Mediterranean not so many years ago to support NATO/EU activities, another covered for Clyde when she was having a refit, and spent some time in the Caribbean. The five Batch 2 vessels and enlarged and improved, although they were ordered to keep the shipbuilders busy. They have a proper flight deck, improved communications, and others. One was earmarked to replace Clyde, but the other four.....? Perhaps one can go to the Caribbean (for at least part of the year), allowing the LSD(A) to return to COMATG's ORBAT? Perhaps another can go the Mediterranean for NATO operations? You certainly would not to be in one in the Strait of Hormuz right now.

Then late last year Gavin W announced that the Batch 1s would be retained for tasks in home waters, and based around the UK instead of in naval bases. I am not sure they have fully worked out the manning yet...

The thing is, the RN needs more people as a top priority, as does the RAF, and I would say more helicopters (Merlin HM2 or Wildcat HM2), as a priority. The politicians prefer to make vague sounds about ship numbers though. We (I am saying 'we' as I do wear dark blue) need more people for our current ones.

[racedo]

The thing is, the RN needs more people as a top priority, as does the RAF, and I would say more helicopters (Merlin HM2 or Wildcat HM2), as a priority. The politicians prefer to make vague sounds about ship numbers though. We (I am saying 'we' as I do wear dark blue) need more people for our current ones.

Hence anybody thinking there will be lots more ships and people for Fishery Protection is having a laugh. RN hasn't enough people to man existing fleet and there is no rush of people to join up either. Lets be honest who the hell wants to be in a tiny fisheries protection vessel, in all weathers, for crap money knowing they are protecting the wealth of seriously wealthy people already.

[Melchett01]

According to today’s Times, Dominic Cummings is trying to get the Tories onto an election footing so they can ‘leave the EU then smash Corbyn’. As part of this drive Cummings is looking to departments for policy achievements and indications what policies can be ditched. The article goes on to suggest that ‘there could be significant cuts to wasteful Ministry of Defence procurement projects ...’

So is this Boris’ ‘Defence Dividend’ in the making? I know he made roughly the right sort of noises in the leadership campaign, albeit with seemingly less commitment than Hunt. In the meantime, I have been wondering how Defence in the round would fare given the announcements about spending increases for almost every other aspect of life. Now call me a bluff old traditionalist, but a global posture needs a credible military to back it up.

So is Defence about to get the bat inserted once again? Does Boris really give a damn about Defence?

[Asturias56]

The one thing everyone agrees on , especially his friends and ex-employers, is that you can't trust Boris at all.

He'll do whatever is best for Boris at any particular moment.

It worries me to hear the words " wasteful Ministry of Defence procurement projects" - we know the UK MoD isn't exactly brilliant at procurement but what programs are currently underway that would make a difference financially?

Dreadnought - he'd face a melt -down from his supporters
F-35 - not when he wants to cozy up to Trump
Apache replacement - possible stretch I guess
Astute #7 - possible stretch
T-26 - surely not?
PoW - stretch - probable?

I'm scratching my head to see what else there is TBH

[Easy Street]

The quote “wasteful Ministry of Defence procurement projects” could have come from Dominic Cummings himself and as I pointed out on the carrier thread a few weeks ago (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10535900) he has long cited the carriers as a prime example. However, it’s tricky to see how large savings could be generated without selling at least one of them off, which would attract much criticism for undermining the ‘global Britain’ narrative. A way of doing it while minimising political damage to Boris would be to actively brief against the carriers’ usefulness. That’s just the sort of skulduggery that Cummings and co would indulge in, so it will be interesting to see how this develops.

[Asturias56]

Well he could just look at the Carrier thread on here where quite a few people (including me) bewail the distorting effect of the Carriers on the RN.

But as you say that is going to be a tough sell - maybe they 'll buy F35A's instead of B's to save some cash..................... but it's still hard to see one that will generate significant savings... and of course "savings" suggests that the money will come out of the Military Budget and be spent on bribes to those hit by BREXIT

[Melchett01]

I have to say Cummings worries me. Just as I get a sense that McDonnell is the puppet master in Labour, I’m starting to wonder who is pulling the strings in Government. He would do well to remember he is an appointed functionary not the anointed Messiah.

But frankly I too am at a loss as to what might be cut, if nothing else given Boris’ apparent statements about ensuring the Forces are appropriately resourced and funded. All the major projects are well into their gestation with contracts signed and billions spent; like it or not they can’t simply be cancelled without cost. And if we really are going global, then we will need all those capabilities.

Not that facts or the reality of the situation seem to matter for much these days. An encouraging turn of phrase and invoking some Churchillian spirit seems to be all that’s required of our political leadership, the rest just have to repeat the approved lines. I’m not getting a good feeling about the next few years for Defence.

[weemonkey]

Why did you bring BREXIT (officially EU EXIT) and fisheries protection onto this thread?



Perhaps he failed to grasp the democratic principle somewhere along the line.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

A56

Exactly what operational tasking you think the RN is unable to achieve because of the carriers? Use real examples....


Melchett

Agree. He strikes as a complete [censored]. Driven by convictions rather than provable facts, and not accountable in the same way as an MP or Peer. I thought we were leaving the EU as people were fed up of unelected power mongers?

Defence took a hammering from the Commons Committee for poor decision making - such as the SDSR 10 carrier debacle, committing to Helmand province without knowing who made that decision, or why, or what our forces were meant to achieve.

See: Decision making in defence policy (https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/defence-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/decision-making-in-defence-policy/)

Poor record keeping, and making assumptions that people would have the same knowledge (eg the reason for preferring STOVL and F-35B was not adequately documented), and doing new things seemingly for the sake of it has not helped. The part of the Nimrod review (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229037/1025.pdf) that deals with organisational issues is also damning,

I fear that other Government departments suffer from the same malaise. Ministerial accountability and proper cabinet Government would help.

weemonkey

Not sure - some have promoted fishery protection as a growth industry.

[Asturias56]

The RN is short of destroyers, frigates, patrol vessels and submarines - that is a fact

they are also very short of men

the carriers have soaked up billions in cash and hundreds of men to man them

they will require a diversion of ships currently patrolling elsewhere to defend them

They look great but for British interests they are an overblown luxury that badly skews every other naval option


PS "not accountable in the same way as an MP or Peer." :p :p - when were THEY ever accountable???

[racedo]

Perhaps he failed to grasp the democratic principle somewhere along the line.

Nope

It is highlighting as per the thread starter the public ignorance that is out there. RN has not got enough vessels to do another South Atlantic escapade like 1982, yet we are told that come Nov 1 there will be lots of vessels to protect UK fishing areas where in reality there will be no additional ones.

Even accounting for a couple of billion put into it, it would take 3 yrs to get even close to full protection and great you have the vessels but there is not the crew there and unlikely there would be either.

Icelandic Cod war would be a childrens Tea party in comparison because Spanish fishermen using 6-7 boats in a group enter Uk Fishing areas, this is done 15 times at same across a huge area and you have to try and police each one. Some will fish, some will just transit etc etc.

Come November the shock will be about how UK PLC cannot protect fishing areas, how it has happened, when it will be put right with the usual Right wing media asking can't we just send aircraft to sink these fishing vessels.

It is symtomatic of the malaise that RN will be blamed because UK Govt underfunds everything unless it is a mega capital project that sucks up billions as a bottomless pit.

[andrewn]

It is symtomatic of the malaise that RN will be blamed because UK Govt underfunds everything unless it is a mega capital project that sucks up billions as a bottomless pit.

Yes, its relatively easy to find CapEx funding, as its largely one-off, it's also sexy and high profile, is often used as a political bribe, creates "new" jobs, and can be career defining. Hence the commonly used term of vanity project.

OpEx or "run" funding is a different matter. Who cares about keeping the lights on, ensuring that carrier you just spent $X Bn on is fully manned, or if Typhoon pilots are achieving required currency? There's no prizes for this dull stuff, so just keep chop, chop, chopping until you eventually have to make the "hard decision" to retire due to obsolescence or some other such guff, bought about by years of chronic underfunding.

Other Government depts are no different, hundreds of millions can be found for new road schemes, but we refuse to maintain the ones we've got!

[Asturias56]

Exactly!!! But you rarely hear an SO writing to the "Times" about store levels TBH

[racedo]

Exactly!!! But you rarely hear an SO writing to the "Times" about store levels TBH

You do when they run out of missiles or bombs and blame everybody but themselves.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

A56

So are you saying that because of the carriers, the RN has no ships committed to NATO, none in home water for Fleet Ready Escort, and none in the Middle East? How was HMS Kent rapidly generated and deployed in response to recent events?

racedo

When did this running out of 'bombs or missiles and blaming everybody' take place?

[etudiant]

It appears that while Britain has to reset its strategy and its commitments in a post Brexit world, there has not as yet been much serious discussion of the alternatives.
The country has a nuclear deterrent which will be expensive to renew and overseas alliances and territories that entail obligations.
A 'Little England' strategy focused on fisheries protection does not address those budget drivers. Are those up for discussion now?
Is there any sign of any coherent debate on future military priorities? At this point, can anyone discern where Labor and the Tories actually differ in their position?
So small wonder the public is indifferent and/or confused.

[Asturias56]

"So are you saying that because of the carriers, the RN has no ships committed to NATO, none in home water for Fleet Ready Escort, and none in the Middle East? How was HMS Kent rapidly generated and deployed in response to recent events?"

Would you care to say how many ships are committed to NATO, how many are Fleet Ready Escort and how many are in the ME? And how many occur in more than 1 category??

On July 22nd the total active RN destroyer frigate force available world-wide was 9 vessels - those of us who are unconvinced by the carrier argument believe the RN could have had a larger, and more useful, force of other warships.

You profoundly disagree - that's your privilege

As etudiant says there is a total lack of any sort of clear strategy - just a constant chipping away at numbers and continued stretch of the what remains

[weemonkey]

Follow the link given on screen!!! unfortunately..

2ZP3Fceo5ys

[pr00ne]

weemonkey,


WoW!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

One of the underlying themes of this thread has been the question of whether defence and security planning should be based on known threats or known vulnerabilities. I hope that the unexpected good settlement marrks a move towards the latter.

I hope that there balance between efficiency and resilience is reconsidered by every Government department, public organisation, and major companies.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I once heard the phrase "less war - less peace" - very appropriate for these odd times.

From last December: New MI5 chief says UK facing 'nasty mix' of threats (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54540428) - BBC

Russian, Chinese and Iranian espionage and disruption is all growing in severity and complexity, said Mr McCallum.

The threats are to people, the economy, infrastructure, academic research and democracy.

MI5 has an operational role in investigating certain individuals and disrupting their activities, and a protective role building up UK's resilience in the cyber and physical spheres.

Dealing with China requires a complicated balance, he said.

He said there is a need to work with China on issues like climate change, but at the same time to be robust in confronting its covert activity.

New legislation is expected to make a big difference in bringing the law up to date (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53489613) in criminalising what foreign espionage agents get up to inside Britain.

Mr McCallum used a meteorological analogy, saying Russia was like bad weather but China was a far greater challenge in the long-term and more like climate change.


More recently: Into the Grey Zone - Sky (https://news.sky.com/story/into-the-grey-zone-exploring-the-murky-evolution-of-warfare-12184358)Covert Attacks
Proxy forces
Stealing vaccines
Crafted lies
Influencing voters
Supressing debate
Energy as powerAll things we can expect from certain regimes.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I wonder if these proxy forces being though about will include thing such as attacks on international shipping - such as these (https://news.usni.org/2021/01/06/spate-of-attacks-on-ships-in-middle-east-points-to-iran-backed-group), or the use of anti ship missiles by proxies of Iran? These have required the deployment of frigates and destroyers. Likewise will interference with air transport by potentially hostile aircraft getting in the way be considered - with a need for protection by Typhoon etc?

[Asturias56]

"These have required the deployment of frigates and destroyers"

Correct - but as you are aware some people are trailing CUTTING the number of both as the RN can't man the whole fleet now they have 2 carriers

[Mortmeister]

The reason for the inability to crew these ships is much more complex than saying because the RN has two large aircraft carriers.
The RN has a huge problem retaining people. That has nothing to do with carriers and everything to do with Conditions of Service. I work with the RN every day, my son is a serving RN engineer so I think I may be reasonably qualified to comment.
In the job I do, I have seen multiple CPO engineers up and leave at the 15-19 year point. Some of which have been highly motivated individuals who the RN should be actively trying to retain, but the apathy that comes from the lower end of the leadership scale (round and about SO2 level) is breathtaking.
Another factor is the change in pensions. Staying till the 22 year point is no longer worth it, as there is no benefit; especially with a vibrant job market on the outside. When these changes were made, it sent a signal to many (me included) and leaving was absolutely the right thing to do.
Any Service is only as good as its people, leaders should be aware of this.
But don’t blame the Aircraft Carriers, the rot set in long before they were on the scene.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

"These have required the deployment of frigates and destroyers"

Correct - but as you are aware some people are trailing CUTTING the number of both as the RN can't man the whole fleet now they have 2 carriers

You do have a been in your bonnet about that? The story goes that in 2015 both the RN and RAF expected a manpower uplift, but doing this would have involved cutting 'troop' ie Army personnel numbers, and Cameron was afraid of upsetting back benchers. This had caused problems, but has coincided with update projects that have meant ships have had to spend time being refitted and upgraded. A couple of years ago the Government decided that the priority was to put as many RN ships to sea as possible - I presume that has meant buying more spares, and hopefully more aircraft spares for Merlin. But the main requirement has been for people, hence the reforms to cut senior personnel from HQ type roles, and to recruit more junior personnel.

Recruiting has been stepped up, and more recruits are being trained than before (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/january/19/2021019-collingwood-recruits).

The base is meeting a surge in demand to join the Fleet due to Covid and plans to grow the Navy by 3,000 sailors over the next three years, starting with 1,000 extra personnel in 2021.

[Asturias56]

WEBF - for years on the Carrier thread you've rubbished anyone who suggested that the RN wouldn't have enough manpower to run the Carriers AND the rest of the surface fleet.

Now that it has come to pass and they're floating the idea of cutting the destroyer/frigate fleet to 15 which would be "fully crewed"

"Sir Humphrey's Thin Pinstriped Line.... https://tinyurl.com/3s5bnvtv To Boldly Sail No More - Is There a Case for Scrapping Royal Navy Frigates?" by ORAC

your're still rubbishing anyone who suggests it may happen

[Finningley Boy]

A personal opinion, they probably couldn't argue the case, but the Government needs to increase defence spending to something closer to 1990 level. On top of that, the approach to and method of recruitment needs to go back to basics. They might improve the retention rate and who knows, the standing ambitions of maintaining and operating what little we now have might just be possible.

FB

[WE Branch Fanatic]

WEBF - for years on the Carrier thread you've rubbished anyone who suggested that the RN wouldn't have enough manpower to run the Carriers AND the rest of the surface fleet.

Now that it has come to pass and they're floating the idea of cutting the destroyer/frigate fleet to 15 which would be "fully crewed"

"Sir Humphrey's Thin Pinstriped Line.... https://tinyurl.com/3s5bnvtv To Boldly Sail No More - Is There a Case for Scrapping Royal Navy Frigates?" by ORAC

your're still rubbishing anyone who suggests it may happen

No. I have rubbished the idea of axing core capabilities to free up manpower, and I have consistently said that the RN (and presumably the RAF) needs more people. The politicians may not have listened, but the First Sea Lord and the senior leadership has made things happen. An extra 3000 over three years!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I saw this the other day and thought it thought provoking - particularly in times of possible cuts to frigate numbers or other elements of our forces being discussed.

Israeli article about the grey zone and maritime threats from Iran (https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-gray-zone-attack-on-cargo-ship-iran-israel-tensions-enter-murky-waters/)Iran learned from the experience that it cannot stand toe to toe (https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/150219_Cordesman_IranAirSeaMissileThreat_Web.pdf) — or hull to hull in this case — with the US in a conventional naval conflict. It instead developed a range of capabilities for asymmetrical naval warfare.

“It doesn’t just focus on one kind of attack,” Cordesman stressed. “It practices low- level attacks… It escalates to land-based anti-ship missiles. It conducts a mixture of attacks on shipping from platforms like drones, they use or at least encourage groups like the Houthis to use land-based missile attacks in sequence, or simultaneously with naval attacks. So this is not some kind of simplistic model. Effectively you’re talking about a country that knows how to play three-dimensional chess.”
-----
Iran has invested heavily in pursuing hegemony over the sea in its neighborhood. It has short, medium and long-range coastal anti-ship missiles, including the domestically produced Khalij Fars missile. Tehran has bought and produced submarines armed with long-range torpedoes. On the surface, the regular navy has a relatively robust fleet armed with anti-ship missiles. Its IRGC counterpart has invested in suicide speedboats and fast-attack craft to overwhelm enemy warships with swarm tactics. It can also target ships with UAVs, special forces raids and proxy forces throughout the region.

These elements are on display in Iran’s naval exercises. “Some involve amphibious elements, commando raids, strikes on islands, or platforms like drones,” said Cordesman. “Some involve the use of swarming tactics, others involve the use of remote-controlled surface vessels armed with explosives.”

[Martin the Martian]

So Iran has built the type of navy and sea defences it needs to defend its coastline and territorial waters in a relatively narrow waterway, enough to give a potential opponent a bloody nose and think twice.

Seems like a sensible idea.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

So Iran has built the type of navy and sea defences it needs to defend its coastline and territorial waters in a relatively narrow waterway, enough to give a potential opponent a bloody nose and think twice.

Seems like a sensible idea.

Also the sort for it wage war against others in the region, forge alliances with Russia and China, and to support proxy and grey zone activities against their neighbours and the international community. I am not sure how giving things like anti ship missiles to their proxies in Lebanon and Yemen counts as defending their territorial waters.

I hope the politicians remember that the Atlantic is not the only place ASW is needed. I also hope that for all this talk of the Indo-Pacific, we are still in the Atlantic.

From Fundamental factors influencing British defence policies (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/fundamental-factors-influencing-british-defence-policies/):

The Atlantic is a famously stormy ocean, and so are most of its subsidiary seas. These waters both directly link the UK to, and insulate (not isolate) it from, a huge swathe of the world. The Atlantic and North Sea also give access to the Baltic and Mediterranean and their littoral countries, as well as to the Arctic Ocean and its littoral countries (which include Russia).

The Atlantic also gives access, directly and indirectly, to the other great oceans of the world. In nautical terms, Argentina, Canada, Russia and South Africa, and every country in between, are neighbours of Britain.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Should defence planning be more influenced by known threats, or known vulnerabilities?