Dannatt: UK armed forces risk becoming "increasingly irrelevant"

[GasFitter]

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8052790.stm)

Eurofighter announcement: Opportune or Coincidence?

[sitigeltfel]

At what rank do the top brass stop being 'military' and change to 'politician'?

Two? Three? Four star?

[nice castle]

SO1, probably, sadly.

So, let's all fight today's war then, and hang the consequences? Hmm, I thought better of him.

[Laarbruch72]

....the fight against al-Qaeda and other militant Islamist groups was "probably the fight of our generation".
He's right.
Sir Richard warned that British forces could expect to be involved in combating "predatory non-state actors" for the foreseeable future, in what he called an "era of persistent conflict".

I agree with him.
The government would need to present a "clear and compelling narrative" to the public, explaining why costly operations had to continue, he said.
I'm also in agreement. What's not to agree with here?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

GasFitter. That crossed my mind as well.

He said defence spending in the medium term should focus on what was relevant, rather than on achieving "balanced" forces

CGS is getting lots of brownie (no pun intended) points from the rank and file for "telling like it is". Well, actually, his shade of purple has rather a lot of red in it. He's holding a big wedge and an even bigger hammer and is likely to be bloody dangerous. It would do more good pointing out what a pathetic proportion of our GDP is spent on Defence. Funny thing is, he doesn't. It would also help if CDS was less shy.

[Jimlad1]

"He said defence spending in the medium term should focus on what was relevant, rather than on achieving "balanced" forces"
I read that as "The army has been screwed in PR09, and is likely to be screwed in PR10 - when will you stupid b@stards stop cutting and let me have a decent army?

[minigundiplomat]

Bin Tranche 3 Typhoon, FRES, and the Carriers.

More Infantry, AT and SH.

Or can anyone think of a set of circumstances where infantry, AT or SH will not be required?

[VinRouge]

I am guessing not a single T3 Typhoon will see the frontline.

At least not with an RAF roundel on it. The contract would have cost Billions in cancellations and caused lots of job cuts. Pay for the project, sell the jets and spend the cash on something better.

Like a moat. Or a trouser press. :ugh:

[cazatou]

mgd

Are you suggesting that HMG should do something as radical as providing equipment that would actually help counter the threat?

:eek:

[onlywatching]

The army is procuring for the current conflict(s), but the huge costs and lifespan of naval vessels (and air platforms I expect) means that we're buying ships with a life of at least 25 years, many will be expected to last much longer than that. How many people in the army heirachy are looking at the types of fight they'll have in that long?

[minigundiplomat]

but the huge costs and lifespan of naval vessels (and air platforms I expect) means that we're buying ships with a life of at least 25 years,


So lets but them when we can afford them. If your fixing a problem with the tyres on your car, you dont go out and buy a new engine just because its expensive and a big job!

Why not take advantage of the recession, and current scrutiny of public spending to streamline procurement, weeding out the underperformers, outdated practices and replacing them with sharp contract lawyers.

Once the economy has recovered, we can then procure things like carriers as a future investment and capability.

At present, there is no funding, and we need AT/SH and Infantry. We don't need carriers/tranche 3 typhoon and their presence, as the elephant in the room prevents investment in those areas we urgently need investment.

Imagine your son/brother dies for lack of boots on the ground, a helicopter or working airbridge bringing reinforcements. How would you feel knowing the money went on a new carrier?

The current tasking given to us causes much of the problems, I will concede, but we cant change that just as we cant magic any funding out of our bumholes, and the situation isnt going to get better anytime soon.

[Spam_UK]

I am guessing not a single T3 Typhoon will see the frontline.

At least not with an RAF roundel on it.


Vin Rouge, Whilst not wanting to start a slagging contest, I'm curious by what you mean by the above.

I agree that the money could have been spent better elsewhere, but your response implies that the RAF are reluctant to participate, and if that is what you meant then can I ask the reasoning behind this thinking?

It has to be remembered that the Eurofighter was designed as an air defence fighter, but the RAF is going to some measures to turn it into a multi-role platform, I however don't believe this would have happenned any quicker if it was in a different service.

However, if you mean an RAF roundal compared to other nations roundels, then I apologise, but still don't think the transition to a mud mover would happen any quicker.

Spam

[glad rag]

:eek: agrees with minigun :eek::eek:

[Impiger]

This is an extremely opportunistic move by CGS who clearly takes the line that only the army is fighting this current battle. ISAF's figures actually show that air attack is killing more Taleban than ground engagements and even CINC LAND has said the army couldn't do what they are doing in Afghanistan without the backing of air power.

So while I have no objection to the line that the army must be properly financed for the tasks asked of it - I do question the sense in configuring exclusively for today's COIN operations and retaining nothing for a more general or traditional conflict in future. Interestingly I don't see the army giving up armour to fund infantry (albeit they do take the blokes out of role). There is also the point that government could choose to leave this war at the stroke of a pen - where would that leave us if CGS got his way: equipped with light forces able only to conduct COIN until we've rebuilt in 10-15 years time.

Balance, but properly funded, is the only sensible strategic way to go.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Spam,

The point he was making, I suspect, is that despite the RAF's best efforts to make T1 typhoons relevant to the 'Stan (And a sterling job they have done to date, if not quite finished yet) & despite the recent signing for T3, most of us in light blue suspect that the T3's will be sold off to Saudi/random other nation who decides they want a shiny toy, as opposed being kept in UK inventory. That's likely to be a political decision, but given the state of the finances at the moment it won't surprise me when it happens!

[Lima Juliet]

MGD

More Infantry, AT and SH

You forgot the ISTAR piece - REAPER, WATCHKEEPER, DH3, ASTOR, NIMROD R1, etc... The Army are very reliant on them at the moment!

LJ:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

The broad concept outlined by CGS has already percolated down the line. Can't say more.

[Chicken Leg]

I can't imagine why anyone, from any of the three services, would have a problem with what he said. He's the CGS, a soldier, not a purple appointment holder. He's highlighting the very obvious under investment in the Army, not in defence in general; and why should he? That's the job of the CDS.

I don't think at any point is he saying that we should not prepare for the future, but some of the responses would suggest that future possible threats should take away investment from today's very real threats.

What's not to agree with?

[Alpha Whiskey]

Impiger is spot on. Afghanistan is A war, not THE war. Many of us have spent lots of time at great public expense on staff training which has hammered home the point about not becoming fixated on todays conflicts at the expense of being prepared for the uncertainty of tomorrow.

Many may think T3 Typhoon, JCA or CVF are unnecessary and irelevant today but given the level of UOR buy for land systems at the moment, is the crystal ball of former CGS' anything to go by????

(any typos are purely the result of red wine) :)

[foldingwings]

I may be wrong and probably am but when I worked in OR 15 years ago it was commonly and openly stated that the contract signed by MOD(PE) with BAES was such that the Typhoon contract was cost front-loaded and that those airframes in T3 were therefore and accordingly priced at £1 each (that's not a typo - One Pound).

You might ask why but the answer is obvious - it would guarantee for BAES that any change in the political climate or need for the aircraft in the original numbers would result in no saving to the MOD. Consequently there would be no incentive to cancel thereby securing jobs in the NW and maintaining the British Aircraft Industry for the duration of the contract!

Daft, you might say, but we all know about the weakness of the MOD procurement process and its contracting.

Foldie

[Melchett01]

Hmmmmm read this with interest a couple of days ago, and have been mulling it over whilst decorating the spare room. Let's play a little Devil's advocate.

Reading between the lines, the inference from CGS is that current strategy - both procurement and the general defence strategy - is not focusing on the right areas and is skewed away from Land. And as most of the coalition forces on current operations are ground forces, then development, spending and procurement should be skewed in that direction to make us relevant for the current fight.

However, a couple of thoughts crossed my mind whilst slapping on another coat of gloss. Firstly, there is no doubt that the Army are the major player in this conflict and that air is a supporting element. But the fact that the Army could not cope with the support of air, whilst air could quite happily prosecute a campaign without the assistance of ground forces (not necessarily a good idea, but I am playing Devil's advocate) hints at the need for a credible air component, to operate both in support of other commands and in its own right if required. Typhoon will inevitably end up in theatre, whether it is the right platform is another discussion. However, whilst the politicians bang on about the threat from Islamic extremists / militants, we cannot lose sight of the requirement to provide a credible home defence of the United Kingdom as a parallel thread to maintaining our security by engaging threats in theatre. If that means Typhoon as a replacement for the F3, then so be it. The Army wouldn't give up their armour, which let's be honest isn't exactly being worn out in Afghanistan, then why should the RAF give up it's aircraft.

Secondly, if one subscribes to the theory that Islamic extremism can only be succesfully countered by the Islamic moderates rather than being 'defeated' by the Western world, then even CGS' arguments are irrelevant. In this scenario the Army has little role in Afghanistan other than containing the fight by acting as a magnet for extremists, and thus engaging them and neutralising them on the streets of Sangin and Musa Qala rather than London or Bradford. In this case, surely the most relevant COA would be to pump money into the intelligence side of things, ensuring that we have a good grasp of what is developing in the world of Islamic fundamentalism, and sponsoring intelligence led operations to turn / neutralise the threat within AFPAK whilst simultaneously ensuring the government's CONTEST strategy is actually fit for purpose and robust enough to achieve results at home.

Just a couple of thoughts, albeit after an afternoon of inhaling paint fumes to get the spare room ready for inspection.

[SirToppamHat]

The general said that only 10% of the MoD's equipment programme between 2003 and 2018 was to be invested in the "land environment"

I am afraid the line above does nobody any favours. The only way I can see the percentage increasing is by reducing the actual amounts being spent in the other areas. However, in my opinion that the current sh1t state of the accounts means that any money saved by deleting or reducing other projects is unlikely to find its way into the "land environment".

MOD is in such a mess financially (not all of its own making) that it cannot possibly hope to balance the books over the next few years without widespread uniformed redundancies and/or the significant reduction of current procurement plans. As for MOD Planning, I honestly don't know if any is being done - just when units think they know what to expect over the next FY, the next PR (a misnomer if ever I heard one) comes round demanding savings that simply can't be made.

This Government is making demands of its Armed Forces that it cannot afford. If it was just this year I might be accused of ranting, but it goes back to before PR08, and I don't expect it to end any time soon.

STH

[Chicken Leg]

I think that we're mostly in agreement without realising it!

Few would disagree that what we need now is more infantry, SH and AT. I would agree with one of the posts above and add ISTAR/Int gathering to that list too. Who can foresee a future conflict, any conflict, that would not benefit from all four of those capabilities. Therefore, investing in more of those capabilities now, would not be wasted and irrelevant in future operations.

I would suggest that the 'land environment' would benefit hugely by more SH and AT, so my point is not Army centric per se. But as I said above, what's to disagree with?

[NURSE]

Have to say this govt has some skewed logic comit the armed forces to conflict after conflict and reduce resources at the same time. forgetting the old old adage there are 3 things you need to fight a war money, money and money and I think it was the duke of wellington who said that.
Sir Richard has nothing to loose he's on his way out and wasn't going to be promoted as he isn't a yes man like the officer who is getting CDS. I have to agree partially with Minigun diplomat and say the immediate needs are as he states. However as has been stated Afghanistan is A war and A type of warfare. But its not the only type of war we could be involved in the next 25 years wonder how good Mastiff would be on the German plains? Or the streets of Belfast? Both from history but history has a habit of repeating it self.
History has shown us that if you send an armed force into a battle not equipped to fight it you get beaten BEF 1940 is a good example. Defence isn't only about dealing with the immediate threat its about dealing with future threats as well and as has been shown historically the "Jam Tomorrow" concept of defence procurment usually means getting no Jam at all and your Ar$e kicked to boot.
Typhoon T3 if fully swing role it is a usefull asset as is the carrier. Maybe for the immediate threat some of the shelf purchasing would be useful instead of the conceptual projects like FRES and Flynx why not Piranah and AW139?

[golf 8 delta]

STH,

You make a number of valid points, but if SoS had made the right decisions as presented to him we could easily have skipped this PR nonsense on an annual basis. Unfortunately as you approach an election the temptation, for the spineless few who run this country, is to solve the in year problem + 1 and create a massive bow wave, thereby requiring PR after PR.

Alternatively the Govt could just stump up the extra £2Bn and we'll all go back to making sure Defence is configured as a flexible force, including funding the extra AT, SH and Infantry that are required in the short term.

Configure Defence to conduct COIN ops through a 25 year procurement strategy is sheer folly, and I think CGS knows its the only way to hang on to 105,000 troops. :}

[Pheasant]

Call me a cynic but....

and I think CGS knows its the only way to hang on to 105,000 troops.

sums up CGS's position completely. Without the current campaign the Army would have little to contribute to world-wide ops (nor would the RAF for that matter) and thus it is in CGS's interest to play up the current campaign.

The RN on the other hand would continue in its role of world-wide presence, available at short notice to effect diplomacy and be coercive if required. A standing Army, based in UK, cannot do much diplomacy or coercion (nor can the RAF).

Also...

instead of the conceptual projects like FRES and Flynx why not Piranah and AW139?


There is nothing conceptual about FLynx (now called WILDCAT), it is being built, will fly in November and has a confirmed role (for the RN at least).

[chumzpilla]

Call me a cynic but....

You're a cynic but.

[Pontius Navigator]

The RN on the other hand would continue in its role of world-wide presence, available at short notice to effect diplomacy and be coercive if required. A standing Army, based in UK, cannot do much diplomacy or coercion (nor can the RAF).
That's novel. You appear to be suggesting we have a defence force based on foreign policy.

[minigundiplomat]

The RN on the other hand would continue in its role of world-wide presence, available at short notice to effect diplomacy and be coercive if required. A standing Army, based in UK, cannot do much diplomacy or coercion (nor can the RAF).


Short notice - I seem to recall the RAF Chinooks had been at work for some time when the RN war canoes arrived and 'took over', having scented a media opportunity.

Coersive - Like 'iPODgate'? And how exactly do they project this power?

Naval Gunfire - Possibly, but not very often and definately not against a capable adversary.

SHAR - gone.

RM - as always, a capable at potent force. However, of the last few times they have gone ashore, it has been the RAF Chinooks who have provided the bulk of airlift (Not all, 845/846 provide 3 Bde excellent support, but they are hamstrung by the capabilities/lift of the SK).

The use of some carrier group to provide the solution is flawed on a number of levels.

Firstly, the attitude of senior naval officers, and their closed minds on anything not involving deep blue ops and a cocktail party.

Secondly, the RN cannot retain enough tradesmen in this day and age to sustain such a force. Retention is a huge issue amongst junior RN ranks. Who wants to sail to the Middle East and mop decks when they are not doing their primary duty?

Thirdly, a week is a long time in international politics, so unless we can guarantee any future crisis are generated in the mid North Atlantic or this side of Suez, a carrier group is just too damn slow.

Finally, even if the new carriers go ahead, the RN runs the risk of fielding an effective carrier group, but without the teeth to strike, as any future aircraft procurement is going to have to run the gauntlet of funding, against a backdrop of cuts. And having given up most of the surface fleet in exchange, assets to support such capital ships (a prime target for anyone with a grudge) will be thin on the ground.

If I was a member of the RN, I too would be fighting hard to perpetuate the myth that 2 new carriers represent the only guarantee of the UK's future security, but it is a myth.

There have been a number of posts on here that have just missed the point completely. We are not awash with money, and won't be for decades. We need to cope with the wars we have NOW, and think about what may happen when we are in a position to do so.

I agree with the carrier purchases, despite the facts outlined above because I would like to see the RN survive, and although sceptical that a carrier is the answer to every question, it is a useful asset.

However, I agree with more infantry, helicopters and transport aircraft more; much, much more.

I don't agree we need 200+ Typhoons, but I guess we're stuck with that now.

[Beatriz Fontana]

There will be a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in 2010 once the next General Election is over and done with.

Don't forget that after the last SDR we had a "New Chapter". We could do with some forward thinking 5-years hence stuff. As I read in the paper today (forgive me, a few lunchtime beers and they all merge into one), some comment saying "we don't need Type 45s to chase pirates".

[Pheasant]

MGD,

We need to cope with the wars we have NOW, and think about what may happen when we are in a position to do so.

Oh no we don't. With your philosophy we could end up pulling out of Afgh in 6 months (a week is a long time in politics) and find we just have an Army with a capability existing of only UOR based equipment. Dannatt is fundamentally wrong in giving up on FRES and focussing solely on the now, rather than the next 25 years.

Our role in Afgh is already being diminished by the US surge in Helmand and I suspect the UK will resort to only providing niche capabilities.

[chumzpilla]

I suspect the UK will resort to only providing niche capabilities.Is that such a bad thing? At the rate we are losing front line soldiers how about we just let the septics get on with, what is after all their war as was the other one. We could perhaps provide special forces and they could provide the road side bomb fodder. Then lets see how much of a stomach they have for the war. Is it called the "War on Terror" any more?

[Pontius Navigator]

how about we just let the septics get on with, what is after all their war as was the other one.

A little bit incontinent here, what have patients in Birmingham's finest medical facility got to do with it?

[Yeoman_dai]

NURSE: Mastif would be quite useful in Belfast, better than the Saxons and Pigs they used to have :ok: oh, and FRES IS Piranha, thats the chassis they would use if FRES was put into service. I'm of the opinion anyway that FRES is one of the most important procurements for decades, to replace the thousands of ancient, underarmoured FV series APC's et al in the Armies inventory. If they had them, then they would be exceptionally useful in afghan, and the US Forces are planning to use their Strykers (based upon the same Piranaha) vehicle there too. :)

Infantry are needed, but money can't solve it all, recruits need to be drawn in, and then survive training and hang in there. Yes,because of the recession, a lot more people are signing up, but how many of those will give up very very quickly once in basic because they only joined because they were forced to, not because they truly want to be in the Army? or Navy/Airforce for that matter. The training is designed to weed out those who would fail the team on ops, out, and unfortunatly I suspect a lot of the recession joiners will be that sort...:bored:

Chumpzilla you seem to think we have had the only casualties and the Americans have beendoing nothing? They held down the harder, larger part of Iraq, and have around 4 times as many troops in Afghanistan as us, even before the surge, and have been fighting just as hard in other areas that the British media don't bother reporting. They actually have a different version for ISAF - I Saw Americans Fight. Please give them some respect?

AT the end of the day, apart from those off track comments above, CGS is doing his job, and doing it well, in trying to protect his service. Most of the thoughts nowadays is that non state actors will be the greatest threat to the UK anyway, and so why not increase the armies funding just a little bit compared to the other two forces? Although two excellent points made, in that a) We, UK inc have no money to do this and b) if the money did get cut from others, then it would get sent elsewhere. :yuk:

[Wader2]

yeoman Dai, I think your shots are landing pretty close to the bull.

[Blacksheep]

Most of the thoughts nowadays is that non state actors will be the greatest threat to the UK Will be? They already are and have been for decades. :ugh:

The UK is a very long way away from Iraq, Afghanistan or even the pirates of Somalia. To actually threaten Great Britain you need to be either inside our borders, or in a position to interfere with trade. The army are not involved in keeping these people out of our country, indeed that task is impossible because most of those who threaten us are British citizens. The RAF see no threat from the air, the skies are fully protected by the security muppets at our airports. The Royal Navy, according to this report (http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx?cp-documentid=16922757), have just six warships - three Type 23 frigates and three minesweepers - plus two offshore patrol vessels and a support tanker specifically tasked with the protection of UK waters.

Meanwhile the bulk of our military might is focussed hundreds of miles distant; Iraq, from where (we were told) a mad deranged dictator was poised to unleash death and destruction upon our island at just 45 minutes notice and Afghanistan, a place where there were training camps that were used to brainwash young British youths into terrorising our nation. We have on order, at a cost of several billion pounds, two large aircraft carriers intended to give British forces a truly global presence.

To what benefit and to meet what threat? Especially given that the navy appear to have abandoned the defence of our shores. There is great controvery over a number of air superiority fighters the RAF are expecting. These come at a great cost, whether we take delivery or not, but at least these aircraft have the benefit of being capable of defending British airspace. As a citizen and taxpayer, I'd much rather see all three armed forces concentrate their attention on the defence of Great Britain - once their political and military masters wake up to reality and forget about "Force Projection".

But that isn't going to happen. We'll continue to rely on police, immigration officers and "the security industry" to defend our shores while the military are deployed on purely political adventures, thousands of miles away from home. :rolleyes: