Is it time to rethink our role as a "military power"? [Archive]

Yeoman_dai

18th May 2009, 19:51

Oh, certainly.

Ministers want to have their cake and damn well eat it as well.:*

My personal view is that the malaise is spread far deeper than just the MoD and out world status. Big business alters their management structures as much as possible, in order to keep up with the modern outlook and practises - so, why are we using a system of government that is centuries old?:confused:

Our governmental system is old and outdated, the NHS is bloated and heavy with middle management waste, the social services system is a mess, and needs a complete overhaul and the injection of a bit of common sense - £40 a week to someone living at home with his parents is all very well, (a sponge of a friend of mine i'm using) but if he works, and earns say £30, they give him the extra £10 - so there is no incentive for him to work at all:rolleyes:. The legal services are a hodge podge, as is the police force.

The single biggest problem is that every time a new law or department is created, the govt refuses to chop off the dead wood, leaving us with useless, pointless and overly controlling laws, and a civil service th size of sheffield.:ugh:

The country, as a whole, and every aspect of government - Education, Health, Public Services, Laws, and Defense all need turning upseide down a shaking, and need completely changing to suit the modern world. Maybe then we wouldn't waste so much damn money, and could afford to spend 3%of our GDP on defence, 0.5% more than now, which means we COULD have our cake and eat it.

I'm not holding out hope for a Prime Minister with the guts to do that, though....:yuk:

Bus429

19th May 2009, 06:07

Yeoman,

I was thinking of writing to the "leaders" of all three main parties suggesting the sort of root and branch review - and cutting the dead wood, keeping with the arborial analogy - that you put very well above. The country needs an overhaul, ranging from suggestions above to an elected upper house.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

19th May 2009, 07:00

an elected upper house.

Despite being recently buggered about, that's one of the bits that work! Why not look at the really broken bits first?

Flying Lawyer

19th May 2009, 08:14

Is it time to rethink our role as a "military power"?

Link to an interesting (IMHO) report written by a friend of mine for the UK NDA a couple of months ago which addresses that specific question:
"A decision the next Prime Minister must make" (http://www.uknda.org/my_documents/my_files/UKNDA_Defence_Policy_Doc_24pp.pdf)

It's quite long, but worth reading if time permits.
He's a former head of the Defence Export Services at the MoD and appears to favour the first of the two options.

The gist of what he argues is that Britain must make a stark choice:
Either accept that defence spending must be increased by £15 billion a year or accept that we will become what he calls a second division military power.

.

Bus429

19th May 2009, 09:34

The thing is, Flying Lawyer, are the resources available for the first option? This government seems willing to squander billions on IT systems that nobody wants/needs (NHS) and other ridiculous schemes. This government also fails to listen, IMHO.

Flying Lawyer

19th May 2009, 11:01

Bus429

I was simply pointing to a paper dealing with the specific, and IMHO very good, issues of principle you raised for discussion both in your thread title and in your post.

I didn't say whether I agreed or disagreed with the author's views on the topic.
(For various reasons I'd prefer not to explain, I can no longer express any political opinions, whether party politics or generally.)

FL

skippedonce

19th May 2009, 11:13

Deliverance,

Not that I'm saying we should copy Russia, China or France's foriegn policies, but just what obligations do you mean, other than self-imposed ones by our government?

'If they want to go down that road it is quite simple, resign our seat as a permanent member of the security council and the obligations that go with it.'

S.O.

Wyler

19th May 2009, 11:34

We are no longer a World Power. Our contribution to the latest adventures is, to quote a mate out their, 'pitiful'. We have neither the hardware, people or political will to continue chasing the Americans around the globe and demanding that other Nations follow our lead. On top of that, it will be a cold day in hell before another politician commits UK forces to an overseas US led 'War'.
No, we need to realse that we are just a tiny Island Nation in the overall scheme of things and tailor our forces as such. The British Public want to see our forces protecting the homeland.
However, when has it ever been about what is right. It is about jobs and keeping the Defence Industry alive and kicking. Therefore, what the military needs is irrelevant.
A complete and utter bloody shambles.

Yeoman_dai

19th May 2009, 13:27

"On top of that, it will be a cold day in hell before another politician commits UK forces to an overseas US led 'War'"

You think, do you? Don't bet on it, not by a country mile. No politician is ever ever going to risk the polical fallout of pulling out of a role as a world 'power'.:ugh:

I say, we get rid of the Army and Airforce, and just pump loads of money into the RN, get them decent air power, increase the size of the Marines.... :ok::E;) (that was very very tongue in cheek for those that missed it :p)

GPMG

19th May 2009, 14:53

Increase the size of the Marines??

Is 6ft 1 not big enough then?

Still, Afg beats Cople Down as far as training goes eh?

It's a shame that it's knackering blokes in the process though.......

Bus429

19th May 2009, 14:54

So, is Trident - and its upgrade - really needed?

Widger

19th May 2009, 16:49

We do not need to re-think our role. This is why:British overseas territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories) We still have a significant responsibility, particularly when you consider the un tapped wealth of mineral and food resource in several of those areas, some of which are also claimed by other nations. Do not get blinkered by Afghanistan!

Jig Peter

19th May 2009, 17:20

During my 16+ years of aviating in the Royal Air Force I could see how various Britgovs were tacitly acknowledigng that the UK was no longer "world power capable", although Prime Ministers were very capable of suddenly getting a rush of Imperial blood to the head. It's nothing new, and I did cringe when the late Robin Cook talked about "a seat at the top table", as if the UK was an indigent relative with ever-fainter hopes of being above the salt. But no politician is going to go that route, for fear of being torn to shreds in the Press and the polls by loud-mouthed "Patriots".
Not even Mr. Brown and his "money spent on defence is money wasted" chums from the accountancy department down the street will say it out loud, so they have to resort to subterfuge (as Mrs. T apparently did about MPs' expenses, to avoid unpopular pay increases). With the current hullabaloo about those, and Mr. Martin's clumsy speech-making, the obfuscations in governments' attitudes to administration are becoming clear(ish?) .
But a root & branch reform of what is called "The System" is surely a "not on your Nellie" - far, far too many careers (uniformed or not) would come noisily unglued.
The American ambassador to the Court of St. James was sooooo right when he said, all those years ago, that Britain had lost its one-time role in the world and failed to find another.
There were other possible roads to follow, but "tradition", or even plain inertia, and the ambitions of those looking to work the system and so, by "not upsetting the chaps", make a rewarding career for themselves, prevented the country as a whole from taking them.
(Rant NOT over - and it started many a decade ago ) :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Yeoman_dai

19th May 2009, 20:54

Widger makes a good point - but holding onto a keeping a presence in those areas is not the same as acting as a global policeman, which we COULD do with the investment - but cannot because we don't have the dosh.

The whole damn country needs an overhaul, and once overhauled we could do a better job of holding onto those important areas.

GPMG - I won't be happy till all Marines are at least 6'5 giants...:ok:

Tom Laxey

19th May 2009, 21:05

I read the NDA article, and there are several similar ones. I doubt there is any prospect of significant real terms increases in the size of the defence budget - how many votes would an increase win? - and therefore, to be of any use, analyses of the MOD's dilemma must move beyond simply demanding more money. There must be a suggestion for 'breaking the loop' - for ways of deploying as much as we current do, whilst retaining our strategic 'cutting edges', all within the nominal £36Bn or so, split roughly equally between equipment and forces.

The problem the MOD has is that, on the equipment side, the 'cutting edges' keep getting more expensive in real terms. So, for example, even when you cut the total number of ships, and accept that you will only have 2 carriers + support fleet, they are still unaffordable. Or fast jets: 150-odd Typhoons, plus 60-70 JSF, and the kitty is bare. What about UCAVs or advanced missiles? Typhoon is 10yrs late, and JSF STOVL is a 'limited' strike capability by previous RAF standards. What insight, or technology, or collaborative arrangement will break the loop, and allow the MOD's £20Bn to go further, whilst ensuring the MOD is not just buying foreign?

elderlypart-timer

19th May 2009, 21:06

One of the interesting features of the debate about whether or not the UK should try to retain its status as a serious military power is the view that if something serious happens - China attacks Tawian, Russia invades a Baltic state - we can rely on the US to do all the real combat. In the two scenarios listed above its a pretty safe bet that Uncle Sam will wade in but....maybe the other side of the pond will revert to isolationism, maybe we will fundamentally disagree about the value of trying to stop a rather nasty internal conflict. In those situations we will need proper UK armed forces.

As for the money, in the short term there could be billions available from the sale of various no-longer-required MoD assets. I accept that in the medium term there is a need to put more taxpayers money into defence. People always tell me there are no votes in defence but I've never seen a poll that says that. I've never seen a poll that says we should be spending less on defence or that we should reduce our role in the world.

As a civilian who has had various opportunities to see at close range how the British military operate (especially as self loading cargo in various sandy places) I have nothing but the highest respect for how you do the job. However the one activity that you do not seem to be that good at these days is lobbying HMG for more money. Someone once said that the Chiefs of Staff were the strongest trade union in the land. Not any more as far as I can see. The one characteristic above all that they seem to have forgotten is that unity is strength.

Yeoman_dai

19th May 2009, 21:19

Hmmm.... buying foreign...

Apart from Challenger II, and Altberg boots, and very possibly the very current Sa80A2 with all the new attachments, I can't think of a single ship, vehicle, aircraft or item of equipment that we can produce that is better than something made abroad for less money. I'm sure some will disagree, and give me a couple of examples I may even agree with, but its still a pretty accurate generalisation. It comes down to making this budget go further, and buying off the shelf helps with that.

I am fully aware I will mention that doing this and letting British Defense inductry die is out of the question, both from a political standpoint and from a strategic standpoint. It just depresses me that we have sunk so low.

GPMG

19th May 2009, 21:26

Leopard II, Colt Commando or Steyr??

Ok we make the best boots....yippee.

Roadster280

19th May 2009, 21:52

Challenger 2? Not in production for a long while now. BAE closing the factories.

L85A2? Fixed by Heckler & Koch - a German company.

Where the UK does excel is in components. Radars (some of them!), crypto systems, etc. But that doesn't make you a world industrial armament power.

If the UK can build its own nuclear submarines, it's not doing too badly. Too bad it can't build the missiles though.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

20th May 2009, 07:27

With a total UK land area of just under 25,000 Sq Mile, a population of just under 61 Million, our position of 7th richest (recently driven from 4th, probably by self interest and personal greed) isn’t too bad. Now, did we have a strong military capability because of that wealth or was that wealth maintained because of a strong Military? Against the same statistics, we are permanent members of the UN Security Council, head of the British Commonwealth (a much underestimated and underutilised body) and member of various overseas pacts. Again, are we in that position because we’re not poor or not poor because we are?

We became great because we were endowed with leaders who preferred to be big wheels rather than cogs within one. Furthermore, the flawed or not political system gave them the means to achieve it. Having achieved it, they elevated their Country to a similar status in the process and took pride in doing so. As ever, the majority of the Country was composed of people happy to be just cogs, albeit personally prosperous ones, not really caring about power, influence nor responsibility. The political system now allows the self seekers and duty avoiders to set the national objectives and ambitions. In short, the waiters have taken over a 5 star hotel and feel embarrassed that it’s not a hostel. Quite a few of the waiters occupy influential positions all the way to SO1 (and civvy equivalent). As a consequence, we are now having this discussion.

I never had a lot of time for the famous Kennedy family but the one that made it to big fellah belong septicland said something that, I for one, will always value; “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”. The question doesn’t sit well with people with small ambitions beyond personal wealth.

I agree with a number of you (I think) but particularly Widger.

NURSE

20th May 2009, 09:03

This policy of Chasing the US round the globe is a recent thing. We didn't send combat forces to Veitnam in the 60's & 70's. I note we didn't deploy British troops to Grenada. And I didn't note any British forces in Panama and Somalia. So we don't have to do it.
Unfortunatley we are being pulled in a variety of directions by various slants of international politics like EU, NATO, Commonwealth and the good old US of A. Maybe we need to sit down and rethink our military priorities and our foreign relationships. Personally I think we have more in common with our Commonwelth partners in Australia, Canada and New Zealand than the US.
Are we purchasing equipment to keep friendly with allies? or for our defence needs. The FRES program started out as a European program that we withdrew from as the design didn't meet our needs (How much money/time did we waste on that one) Type 45 destroyer came about by our withdrawal from the Horizon destroyer (European) Project. Yes Typhoon has come about from a Pan European project but could we have done better our selves? We seam to waste alot of time and effort on Joint European projects that we pull out of as our "Partners" take the project to suit them and leave us behind. Same will probably happen with A400m & JSFwe will end up with a product built for someones elses needs not our own.
I would agree our systems of Government and infrastructure needs major reform. The much lamented NHS is still actually the best show in town find a better system across the world that is Free at the point of delivery. It needs huge reform and many of the last conservitive govts reforms need undoing. Like the Trust's system. What the NHS needs is a total and fundemental review instead of the constant tinkering and meddeling. The same goes for social care which works hand in glove with the NHS but is run on a county council level.
The UK armed forces are in the state they are in now because this Government are not comitted to the armed forces they like comitting them to foreign adventures.

Wader2

20th May 2009, 11:30

ElderlyPart-timer said As for the money, in the short term there could be billions available from the sale of various no-longer-required MoD assets.
This is a fallacy. We have been selling off 'surplus' assets for years only to have to search museums and scrap yards for the bits - Vulcan nose-probes - Pig APCs etc. Resource accounting and cost of ownership dorve that baby. Selling second-hand equipment is almost at fire sale prices. How much for a BV206?
Getting rid of real estate? Another poisoned challice. Some times we get lucky; more often the land is contaminated or we find we don't actually own it. or we have to remediate and offer to the original owner at a knock down price.

Blacksheep

20th May 2009, 12:04

The primary purposes of a State are to defend its borders against outside intervention and to maintain the peace within those borders. All else - Health & Education included - is secondary. A Minister who says that money spent on defence is wasted is, by definition, unfit to hold any position within government.

We do not need to re-think our role. This is why:We DO need to rethink our role. The British Overseas Territories that Widger mentions are part of our State and fall within the primary purpose of defending our borders. Iraq, Afghanistan etc. do not.

...maybe we will fundamentally disagree about the value of trying to stop a rather nasty internal conflict. In those situations we will need proper UK armed forces.If China invaded Taiwan or Russia invaded a Baltic State that would have nothing whatsoever to do with us. Our purpose as a State is to ensure that China or Russia or anyone else do not violate our own (including those overseas dependencies) borders.

Which brings us nicely on to the next point:

So, is Trident - and its upgrade - really needed? The purpose of Trident is not as so many seem to think, to guarantee our seat at "the Top Table". It is there as a deterrent. It replaced the Polaris that replaced the "V" Force that replaced the truly massive armed forces that existed at the end of WW2. The deterrent that some of our ministers seem to think is a waste of money. Those who say our deterrent has "never been used" don't understand the purpose of a deterrent - certainly Nikolai Valuyev has never been mugged.

It is the Force Projection plans that need to be done away with. Our defense should be limited to just that. Defending ourselves against external aggression. Being aggressive towards others or joining in their squabbles is not our business. In fact, what I suggest is isolationism. There's nothing wrong with minding your own business when there's bigger boys in the schoolyard.

Yeoman_dai

20th May 2009, 12:10

I think this shall be my last post on this subject, but i'm a spotter, and so a few equipment points ;)

Leo II - Chally has a better armour and off road capability, as well as sighting systems. The only reason other countries buy it is Chally is expensive and isn't as cheap to run over an extended period of time as Leo.

Colt Commando isn't - barrel is too short = low velocity = poor killing power from a 5.56 cartridge, as well as using the 'wrong' action, meaning its unreliable. Steyr, yes, getting a little old now, and isn't as reliable as the new A2 - although yes, Roadster good point but H&K was owned by us when they fixed it, it got changed to German ownership afterwards.

Nurse, you're thinking of BOXER MRAV there - which was a waste of time. FRES is something completely different, it is a program rather than a particular vehicle (the vehicle chosen being the Piranha) and a critical aspect of British Defense as it is the program to replace our really old FV430/2 fleet, among others.

Not that its anything to do with aviation, of course. :E

Nurse makes a good point about the Commonwealth - how about it chaps, the United States of the Commonweath, a single entity state! ;) WOuld be pretty darn rich, plenty of space, global reach so they'd be forced to fund defense, and it would be a good excuse to reform our systems. I think i'm onto something here, now I just need to become Prime Minister...

elderlypart-timer

20th May 2009, 15:43

Wader2

I agree that often MoD assets don't realise much cash but there is a large chunk of Govt owned radio spectrum - 75% of which is allocated to MoD - that Ofcom are due to sell at some point. Back in Jan 08 Ofcom thought they could get between £3bn and £20bn for this sale but presumably they wont get that much now. Still they might get as much as £10bn and 75% of that is a sizeable sum - assuming the Treasury can be 'persuaded' to do the decent thing.

NURSE

20th May 2009, 16:37

true Yeoman its been through that many variations. I thought the piranah wasn't suitable which is strange as the Aussies, Canadians and New Zealanders seam to like it.
As to Challey 2 slight problem it will need a new gun soon as Bae don't make ammo for it an its different from the rest of the worlds 120mm. Why have bae stopped making it well the govt stopped ordering it.

Yeoman_dai

21st May 2009, 11:19

NURSE _ Piranaha 5 was chosen a while back

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Design selected for future armoured vehicle for British Army (FRES) (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/DesignSelectedForFutureArmouredVehicleForBritishArmyfres.htm )

lasernigel

21st May 2009, 14:12

Colt Commando isn't - barrel is too short = low velocity = poor killing power from a 5.56 cartridge,

This derived from the change of policy of 'shoot to kill', to one of 'shoot to wound'. This was never said but a man screaming in a lot of pain next to you is a completely different thing to a dead one. Wounded need caring for and medic evacuation.

As to Challey 2 slight problem it will need a new gun soon as Bae don't make ammo for it an its different from the rest of the worlds 120mm. Why have bae stopped making it well the govt stopped ordering it.

A great shame as we were the only ones who used a projectile and a bag charge. No shell cases to dispose of and a good loader could get 6 shots a minute.
The CO of gunnery school at Lulworth at a BAEE in '82 if my memory serves me correctly, issued a challenge to one of the instructors to get 10 down in a minute. He did it in 1min 5 secs and still got his case of champagne!:ok:

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

21st May 2009, 19:19

You forgot to provide the link to your, clearly, impressive evidence.

covec

22nd May 2009, 04:43

1. "Punchy" Home Defence Force ie minimum Air Land & Sea Forces with

2. Strong SF/INT incl. MI6/MI5/Special Branch etc ie Counter Terrorist units +

3. Token but VERY able UN/NATO/EU Deployable Forces eg similar to 16 Air Assault/3 Cdo Bde

And a realisation - and willingness - by the UK - specifically Air Officers, General Staff & Admirals, the public and politicians that the sun long ago set on the Empire.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

22nd May 2009, 08:21

covec. Your location is noted. :rolleyes:

Widger

22nd May 2009, 09:14

Covec,

Home Defence also includes all of those overseas territories that contribute to our current and future wealth. You must also remember that we are a trading nation and 90% of our wealth comes by sea, 80-90% of transatlantic air traffic flies through our skies. Hunkering down and shutting our borders, ignoring everything else is not and has never been an option. We can afford current Defence requirements, all it will take is a fraction on the money that was spent bailing out ONE bank, Northern Rock to afford it. That is the issue. We are a force for good in the world, we are a trading nation and rather than looking at Defence cuts, in this very unsure world and concentrating on "the war", we should be cutting back on the Social Security burden and preparing for "A War".

NURSE

22nd May 2009, 13:45

Didn't the Piranah contract later fall through? something about its suitability (though I suspect more to do with budget being spent on theatre bodge jobs)

NURSE

22nd May 2009, 13:47

Widger Covec,

Home Defence also includes all of those overseas territories that contribute to our current and future wealth. You must also remember that we are a trading nation and 90% of our wealth comes by sea, 80-90% of transatlantic air traffic flies through our skies. Hunkering down and shutting our borders, ignoring everything else is not and has never been an option. We can afford current Defence requirements, all it will take is a fraction on the money that was spent bailing out ONE bank, Northern Rock to afford it. That is the issue. We are a force for good in the world, we are a trading nation and rather than looking at Defence cuts, in this very unsure world and concentrating on "the war", we should be cutting back on the Social Security burden and preparing for "A War".
Today 09:21

Hear hear

Given the EU's sometimes lukewar support to our interests I would sugest we're better off looking after ourselves and the EU doing what its ment for being a trading group not a new Nation state.

covec

22nd May 2009, 20:51

I am talking about a refocussing of what units eg acft types, warship types, land arms we could "maximise" to meet the modern needs of the UK.

Are we really facing an invasion threat? Through France? Norway? Belgium? The Gaps? Really? Do you still believe that!

Unless the Defence Budget increases we will only continue to compromise "effect" across all three Services and stoke up the inter-Service infighting.

And I am not advocating "closing up the borders". Continue to "come to the party" but lets make sure that we have a bl**dy good bottle of the absolute, unadulterated best!

By the way: re my location "EU". I am voting UKIP this June.:ok:

spheroid

23rd May 2009, 16:20

In many ways UKIP would be a sensible choice for your vote....in many ways except defence. The UKIP's defence manifesto is completely barking mad....

1. Don't scrap the carriers...in fact, order another one and have 3.

2. Double the size of the TA.

3. Withdraw from Iraq.

4. Replace Trident.

5. Restore traditional regiments.

6. To increase the Air Force’s capabilities by enlarging the tanker fleet,
modernising the transport fleet, buying more helicopters and 50 extra JSF
aircraft, and increasing RAF personnel to 50,000.

Like I said.....mad as a fish.

Pontius Navigator

24th May 2009, 19:32

Jimlad1

24th May 2009, 19:48

Interestingly, normally I would post "rubbish" at the sight of any "enlarge the forces posts" as we've never been fully manned for years. We currently have a once in a generation chance to get manning increased as there are a lot more potential recruits out there at the moment with the recession.

If we wanted to get a manning uplift, then now is the time to do it.

Shame there's no money though isn't it!

BEagle

24th May 2009, 20:22

As the next PM said at a public meeting in his constituency on Friday:

"..and there's UKIP. I'd better be careful here because we're on live TV.... But really, they simply don't know their arse from their elbow....oh dear, I've gone and said it now!"

DC held a very honest and candid meeting. He came across as a very nice chap who hasn't shirked the need to call his moat-owning duck-fancying colleagues to order. When he becomes PM, we will see a positive, yet honest and transparent style of government which has been sadly lacking since the idiots of nuLabor have been in office.

The Gorilla

24th May 2009, 21:27

Beagle

Sorry but you are not on the planet I am on! DC is no different to TB or GB and we are all going to find that out when he gets the PM's job by default. Call me Dave might be slick and saying the right words but all his promises will be broken when he has absolute power.

You will be telling me next he's going to stop economic migration to the UK and increase defence spending!! Yeah right!

Me? I am going to send out a clear and unambigous message with my vote on June 4th.

TG
:ugh:

elderlypart-timer

24th May 2009, 23:26

I'm old enough to remember Thatcher trying to sell the carriers and Major refusing to do the right thing in Rwanda and hesitating for far too long about the Balkans. Of course Labour has also made some big mistakes and some say that Dave is a new type of Tory who wont fall into the same traps as his predecessors. Perhaps he should promise that whatever new role for the UK is set out in his forthcoming defence review he should say how much it will cost - something that no defence review has done since I don't know when.

Modern Elmo

25th May 2009, 01:12

Unfortunatley we are being pulled in a variety of directions by various slants of international politics like EU, NATO, Commonwealth and the good old US of A.

Unfortunatley or not, George Jr. might have hesitated to attack Eye-rak if your boy Tony had publicly refused to tag along.

A great shame as we were the only ones who used a projectile and a bag charge. No shell cases to dispose of and a good loader could get 6 shots a minute.

Perhaps, but how many rounds/min. can an average loader realistically achieve?

Are we really facing an invasion threat?

Yes, from former British colonies.

... his moat-owning duck-fancying colleagues ...

??? England doesn't have many duck hunters, does it?

Do you mean duck-fancying as in feeding bread crumbs to the duckies at the park -- if not in one's own moat handed down the family line since being expropriated form the workers in Norman times, or do you mean ceramic duck knick-knacks on the wall?

Or are Tories supposed to be especially fond of bird watching?

Curious foreigners want to know.

BEagle

25th May 2009, 06:33

The story probably won't have made it into your so-called noose-papers as it is something which happened outside the US of A, but there is a parliamentary scandal going on in the UK right now regarding MP's expenses claims. Including one who claimed for a new duck house on his private estate and another who claimed for the moat around his stately home to be cleared at public expense......

And yes, if that simpering poodle Bliar had stopped licking GeeDubya's bottom for a moment and listened to the views of most people with half a brain, perhaps Dubya's 'shoot-em-up-cowboy' approach to Iraq might have been tempered.

NURSE

25th May 2009, 06:45

unfortunatley we won't find out the reality of DC as a prime minister until he's elected to that office. And yes many of us remember the 1981 defence review which subsequent events changed. Its a Gamble that history won't repeat itself but thats what you get with democracy.
But I would sugest we are living in a historically significant period of British history because our parlimentry system will never be the same again.

Justin Cyder-Belvoir

25th May 2009, 10:43

Government spending in 08 broke down to, among others of course, £125.3 Bn for Benefits spending ( £137.7 Bn for the Department overall), £30.1 Bn in Tax credits and Child Benefit, £35.6 Bn for the MoD and £8.3 Bn for Business Regulation and Enterprise.

I would suggest that a reduction in spending on Benefits of 10% would generate close on £17 Bn for Defence and a further 10% cut in the Regulatory and Enterprise Ministry( who have abjectly failed to carry out their mandate, hence the guano we now find ourselves in) could boost the Defence budget by close on £18 Bn or 50%. That would represent about 9% of GDP.

That figure is achievable: it just requires the will to change the way we indiscriminately hand out benefit money to all and sundry who arrive on our borders and those within our borders who have never contributed to the national piggy bank.

Modern Elmo

26th May 2009, 00:06

Got this by Googling "ducks MP scandal":

* MAY 22, 2009

More MPs in U.K. Hit by Scandal

By MATT TURNER

The scandal in the U.K. over expenses claimed by members of Parliament widened this past week to a powerful committee that has been scrutinizing pay and behavior in the country's financial system.

View Full Image

Conservative MP Peter Viggers claimed a duck house, above, on his expenses. He won't run in the next parliamentary election.
...

Conservative MP Michael Fallon, deputy chairman of the Treasury Committee, claimed £8,300 ($13,000) more than the rules allowed in expenses related to a mortgage. Peter Viggers, a Conservative MP who has sat on the committee since 2005, claimed £1,600 for, among other things, a floating duck island -- a miniaturized replica of a Swedish house that can serve as shelter for ducks. Both have gained a high public profile from their positions on the committee, by investigating banks, hedge funds, ratings companies and other parts of the financial system as part of a probe into the financial crisis in the U.K.

...

More MPs in U.K. Hit by Scandal - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124294862744345327.html)

One thing to be said for English plutocrat/politicians, or pretender plutocrats: they do seem to have better aesthetic tastes than their American counterparts. Fits the stereotype ... Greeks to the latter-day Romans, and so on.

Modern Elmo

26th May 2009, 00:18

"The Severodvinsk's long-range cruise missiles could be equipped with low-capacity nuclear warheads and intended to attack aircraft carrier strike groups, as well as a coastal targets, the ministry said. The missile could maneuver at a hypersonic speed at its terminal phase of flight...."

"... "Probably, tactical nuclear weapons [on submarines] will play a key role in the future," Vice Adm. Oleg Burtsev, deputy head of the Navy General Staff, told the Ria Novosti state news agency. "Their range and precision are gradually increasing. ..."

Think about that when thinking about aircraft carriers. Tactical anti-ship or coastal target nuclear weapons ...

Russian Subs To Have Nuke Cruise Missiles

Mar 30, 2009

Alexey Komarov/Moscow [email protected]

The Russian Navy is planning in two years to receive its first multipurpose nuclear-powered submarines with long-range cruise missiles, a move that could follow with arming them with low-capacity nuclear warheads, a Russian defense ministry source told the official Itar-Tass news agency there March 27.

The new Severodvinsk attack submarine - Project 855 Yasen, also known as Graney - is expected to be commissioned in 2011. At least six such subs of the class will be built, the ministry said. The Sevmash shipyard could complete deliveries of the entire group by 2017.

Manufacturing of the Severodvinsk was initiated at the end of 1993 and was practically frozen for more than a decade due to luck of adequate financing.

The Severodvinsk's long-range cruise missiles could be equipped with low-capacity nuclear warheads and intended to attack aircraft carrier strike groups, as well as a coastal targets, the ministry said. The missile could maneuver at a hypersonic speed at its terminal phase of flight.

New weapon capabilities could influence Russian Navy strategy. "Probably, tactical nuclear weapons [on submarines] will play a key role in the future," Vice Adm. Oleg Burtsev, deputy head of the Navy General Staff, told the Ria Novosti state news agency. "Their range and precision are gradually increasing."

"There is no longer any need to equip missiles with powerful nuclear warheads. We can install low-capacity warheads on existing cruise missiles," he said.

Nevertheless, the Navy is planning to boost and upgrade its fleet of strategic submarines, carrying larger nuclear ballistic missiles. "We will build at least six Borey-class [Project 955] strategic submarines to serve in the Northern and the Pacific fleets," Burtsev said.

The Yury Dolgoruky, the Borey-class flagship, already is built and is undergoing trials. The sub will carry up to 16 Bulava-M (SS-NX-30) solid-propellant rocket engine ballistic missiles, which are still in development.

Ten Bulava test launches have been conducted since 2003, with only five officially recognized as successful. Nevertheless, Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said the ministry expects to complete trials by the end of this year. Consequently, more than four missiles will be built and tested this year.

Ria Novosti reported a year ago that Russian officials had predicted wrapping up tests in 2008.

The Russian Navy is believed to operate a fleet of about 60 subs, including 10 nuclear-powered strategic boats and more than 30 nuclear-powered attack subs.

Photo credit: U.S. Defense Dept. via Wikipedia

Russian Subs To Have Nuke Cruise Missiles | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/NUKETAC033009.xml)