"Root & Branch review of defence spending announced" [Archive]

Wrathmonk

7th Jul 2009, 15:33

A2QFI

Sadly we already have bullet 1 (Defence Strategic Guidance) and bullet 2 (Defence Programme Directory (IIRC!)). What we don't have is anyone who is willing to stand up and state the latter part of bullet 3! We are, at times, our own worst enemy with our can do attitude. The other problem we have is that the military staff are heavily involved in "socialising" DSG and tend to protect single service issues at all costs! You are right when you suggest there is no 'independant' body who could produce such guidance.

I also fear this will be little more than a sticking plaster approach - with approx 12 months to when the election must happen little will be done that will affect UK plc jobs so there will be no huge changes to Typhoon / Carriers (and therefore JCA) etc. Furthermore, you get to the point when you can't make any financial decisions (in either direction) in public service so as not to sway (bribe) opinion in marginal seats (I'm sure someone more intelligent will remind me of the proper words for this!).

Their only way forward , IMHO, is to reduce commitments in terms of size, concurrency and projected length of operation. Not the place to discuss in depth here but perhaps the current op plus some home commitments may be it for the foreseeable future. Would mean operating very much 'hand to mouth' with no contingent capability whilst AFG is still ongoing. From an RAF perspective that would make the future very bleak for JFH and GR4 (despite being on ops). In terms of equipment purchases - if it isn't needed right know it goes onto the back burner. You could even squeeze harmony even further to reduce headcount (particularly if you were to reduce harmony from x days away in period y to x days away in half of y [which for some of you would be little more than a reality measure]!). And there's no money for redundancies so the only choice there is to make life so unpleasant people leave ....

Would this be sensible? Of course it wouldn't but there is no other choice. When you think the annual defence budget is spent before it is received it will need to be something quite radical to fix it. We have been backed into the corner through years of not balancing the books and putting off what needed to be paid for today until tomorrow. Savings measures such as cutting flying pay / removing CEA / disbanding the Reds and BBMF / making London based staff live in a tented city in the grounds of Uxbridge etc won't even cover a few months (defence) inflation on the equipment programme.

As for the other state departments - both health and education are 'bailed' out by those who opt out of the public systems available and go private. Any changes to those two areas in particular would need to be similarly radical and swift in coming. And that just ain't going to happen, regardless of the colour of the party.

Now a 10-15pence rise, across the board, on Income Tax. Now that might offer up some new money.;)

Gainesy

7th Jul 2009, 16:10

Now that might offer up some new money.

...for the NHS.

When will they realise that you can't stop people dieing?

ORAC

7th Jul 2009, 17:02

dieing Damn tool makers are taking over the world..... :ooh:

Mr-AEO

7th Jul 2009, 17:04

A recent aerospace article quoted someone saying that 2.5% GDP for Defence was higher than most countries which sat at 1.5%. the question was, is the 1% worth it? I.e do we need to fund to 2.5% if we don't have to be a world power . not my thoughts by the way, just commenting on the article. RAeS magazine for June.

mystic_meg

7th Jul 2009, 18:23

the Labour government will have one eye on the general election ..... that'll be a job for Gordon then... :}

TheSmiter

7th Jul 2009, 19:23

Defence review - hardly news for anyone on here with half a brain!

So we haven't had one for over 10 years; SDR put us in the post cold war posture of expeditionary warfare, the New Chapter expanded on that for a post 9/11 world outlook. The big question: what has changed?

Simple, the Govt doesn't want to fund or resource us for the Defence policy it signed up to even after the so called peace dividend.

Ok so we look at it again and the driver is we need to make massive savings in the budget, we can work out what the new policy is later.

Once upon a time, many years ago, I was always led to believe the first duty of any Government was Defence of the Realm. Sadly, that is no longer the case and, if you think Auntie Beeb feels the nation's pulse, the public care very little about that priority. On this evening's News, the announcement of the review was placed pretty much at the end of the bulletin sandwiched between the demise of a minor coffee chain and the cricket. I'm sorry chaps, thats what we mean to the public now. Or maybe the Beeb doesn't reflect society?

On the day that a Labour govt announced an all encompassing review with everything up for negotiation, viewers to BBC Scotland would have seen Quentin Davies (Labour Defence minister) at the carrier steel cutting ceremony make two very interesting statements:

a. that we need the carriers and ordering just one would be plain stupid in case it was needed when it was in refit! (Duh!)

and

b. we can't afford to have any holidays in our (military) capabilities.

So, can someone with a degree in political double speak, explain what that all means?

Once upon a time, the concept of Defence and the nation's security was a given and above the cynicism of party politics - sad that times have changed and I have spent much of my adult life defending the right of politicians to play games with that security.

MaroonMan4

7th Jul 2009, 19:25

I too was around for 'Frontline First' and 'Options For Change' and have certainly not seen anything from the 'peace dividend afforded by the Warsaw Pact' - infact the exact opposite.

My 3 comments are that lets unite together and through the chain of command ensure that the H M Treasury, quangos, mandarins and spin doctors all fully understand during the review of exactly where the UK military is with people, equipment, committments - and where it is forecast to be for the next 5-10 years.

Now is most certainly not the time for senior officer single service bitching and land grabs as H M Treasury would be rubbing their hands with glee. However a truly Joint united senior officer delegation giving the harsh and very stark facts, figures and prognosis would be impossible for any politician to ignore unless we are truly destined to withdraw in an islotionist policy as a British Defence Force.

Secondly, the timings for this review is what makes it farcical. A 'Green Paper' by the end of the year and formal White Paper after the next election - so any meaningful decision has been put off and delayed until at least Autumn 10, with the consequences of that eventual decision many months/ years later.

In my own myiopic world of Support Helicopters FMH/FCR decision delayed again I expect with the Defence Review given as the excuse this time. Lets say that the Carriers are binned or Typhoon mothballed with JFH/GR4 fleet or Trident rejected - as every second of every day of delayed decision millions are wasted as people beaver away. In the case of helicopters I would argue (as per the NAO report in 2003) that there is a risk to ground forces if more helicopters are not procured. Even a decision now would take a couple of years to get to the frontline (look at the Danish Merlin example).

But I am not partisan, just using my comfort zone to highlight and show that MoD and H M Govt are in a state of 'paralysis by analysis'. As I have said before, I do not care about the decision (i.e. UK military either are a UN Security Council 'world player' or an Aussie style Defence Force) - but the decisions are long long overdue.

My 3rd point is that the post above regarding a 'root and branch' review of all Govt departments is spot on and the inefficiency of the NHS, Education, Immigration, Work and Pensions should all be conducted and our senior officers have a duty that they are not viewed as 'easy targets' or 'quick wins' for H M Treasury to save money and try and win votes but I have trust in their moral courage.

NURSE

7th Jul 2009, 21:06

...for the NHS.

When will they realise that you can't stop people dieing?

Most Health care professionals recognise this. Its the Administrators who see it as messing up their patient outcome stats.
Would Agree there is loads of savings to be made in the NHS but the Frontline services are already making them to pay of the useless mouths.

And the Pen pushers will defend thier jobs to the last Doctor or Nurse

NURSE

7th Jul 2009, 21:11

Maroonman4. I would totally agree with your comments no one is going to commit to a major spending project with the review in progress so money will sit around to be returned and lost to the treasury. In the mean time morale will be effected as servicemen/women feel their jobs/prospects under threat.

Jackonicko

7th Jul 2009, 22:09

Earlier this evening I heard Liam Fox give the conventional justification for the UK's retention of nuclear weapons, with a cogent repudiation of any unilateral removal of the nuclear capability.

It was a viewpoint that echoes my own.

He then said that this meant that we had to recapitalise the nuclear submarine force.

Hold up, I thought. That seems like a non sequitur.

I'm aware of the supposed 'studies' undertaken before the decision was taken to replace Trident with another SLBM, but I'm still not convinced that this level of strategic system is the only way, the best way, or an affordable way.

I don't mean that I support the only air launched option studied (two squadrons of A330 sized launch platforms) at the time. I don't.

But I do ask why SLBM?

Why not simple warheads that could be strapped on the front of Tomahawk/Storm Shadow and even freefall weapons that might be stuffed into the weapons bays of a JSF? Or to the front of a hypersonic stand off weapon like Boeing's HyFly when such a thing eventually becomes available?

A cheap and cheerful deterrent, in other words?

A deterrent that would be genuinely autonomous and under national command and control, and not tied into the USA's strategic nuclear forces like Polaris and Trident were.

Do we really still need to wipe Moscow off the map, all on our own-some? (And after Rust, do we still believe that only a SLBM could achieve that?)

Is an SLBM the only way of hitting North Korea - or even the best way?

Given that we need nukes, what do we need them for, and what's the cheapest and most cost effective nuclear capability we can get away with?

althenick

7th Jul 2009, 23:40

Why not simple warheads that could be strapped on the front of Tomahawk/Storm Shadow and even freefall weapons that might be stuffed into the weapons bays of a JSF? Or to the front of a hypersonic stand off weapon like Boeing's HyFly when such a thing eventually becomes available?

A cheap and cheerful deterrent, in other words?

A deterrent that would be genuinely autonomous and under national command and control, and not tied into the USA's strategic nuclear forces like Polaris and Trident were.

Excellent idea Jacko (dont say that very often but there ye go)

-Justifies a 5th gen a/c (Stealthy) to maximise chances of delivering weapon
-Justifies a platform to give 5th gen a/c a truly global reach ie LHD or CVF (I dont care which)

Just for once your talking sense

BTW I take it that peice of crap about carriers in AFM in may was your effort?

Jackonicko

7th Jul 2009, 23:54

Was the piece of crap about carriers in AFM this month mine?

No, I believe that was by the Minister, Quentin Davies.

There was an anti-carrier piece the month before, though that was by this year's Aerospace Journalist of the Year winner in the Defence category.......... :p

A carrier to give global reach?

Better hope that we get plenty of advance notice, then!

Like This - Do That

8th Jul 2009, 02:54

"Options for More-of-the-Same"

= = = = = = = =

Scrap some of the RN's boats? I'm sure the RAN would love to gets its hands on a few hundred trained submariners to man all those boats our recent White Paper suggests will be procured, or even the current fleet.

Then ROSO is up, and off to the WA mines to earn $$$$ like eveyone else in the RAN.

Ogre

8th Jul 2009, 02:55

If we are reviewing the "Root and Branch" then does that mean they are not reviewing the trunk?

So lets ask the question again, do we need super-duper technology for an air force or can we just buy something simple that drops bombs? How many Hawks can you buy for one JSF....?

The Old Fat One

8th Jul 2009, 06:18

Jacko and Althenick,

Basic nuclear deterrence theory I'm afraid. An SLBM force is the only true "second strike platform". Doesn't matter how stealthy aircraft are if they are nuked on the ground. The only platform which comes close to the SLBM for survivability is an uber hardened silo based ICBM. Long ago the UK opted for SLBM as giving the best nuclear bang for the buck, whilst maintaining a coherent nuclear deterrence strategy.

There are many books on the subject, two of the best being "Deterrence" and "The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy" both by Lawrence Freedman.

I agree that deterring a rogue state which has a small nuclear capability with Trident is massive overkill, but that is not what Trident is for (despite what a politician might say). Trident is part of the deterrence against the major nuclear powers, Russia and China, and therefore de facto provides a deterrence against all sorts of other scenarios.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

8th Jul 2009, 07:35

A deterrent that would be genuinely autonomous and under national command and control, and not tied into the USA's strategic nuclear forces like Polaris and Trident were.

Is that old story still wasting ink? Where does it come from? If it’s in the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended, it’s well hidden.

We are not confusing this with the commitment to NATO are we?

hulahoop7

8th Jul 2009, 11:08

I agree Jacko.. I think we're being walked into Trident 2 without considering other cheaper, more appropriate options.

Why not build 3 extra Astutes - we need to keep them building to keep Barrow alive. Each Astute has the ability to carry 38 weapons (TLAM / Torps). Ensure that each one carries 8 nuclear tipped TLAMs + 15 standard TLAMs and 15 torps. In the event of a crisis, any at sea SSNs would be ordered to fire all TLAMs aboard, that's nuclear and non nuclear. If we take the 1 in 3 rule, that would mean 3 SNNs worth. That's a total of 69 TLAMS heading in on the enemy. 24 of which are nuclear tipped. I can't believe that it is beyond science and technology to arrange for all these missiles to be in the air at the same time.

Another option would be for one Astute to be designated the bomber - it could carry 30 nuclear TLAMS with 8 torps.

Many argue that the new generations of AAW systems degrade this style detterent and are becoming increasing available to none top tier states. But I'd counter that you'd have to be very brave to chap to chance those odds - particularly if only high yield warheads were used on each missile. I'd also argue, that if the UK were really going toe to toe with a state that could definitely knock out all of those 69 TLAMs, the world would be in such a sh8#t storm, everyone would be chucking N bombs around.
In addition, TLAM development isn't standng still. The US needs to be able to use them in a conventional strike too - so they are going to get better at penetrating AAW protected air space.

Not_a_boffin

8th Jul 2009, 12:33

One of the many drawbacks of TLAM as a strategic asset is that it's a bit slow. Three hours is plenty of time to get away from a target area if you are a half-decent mad dictator, as opposed to half an hour if a big boys ballistic message is coming at you.

The limited range of TLAM means that to hold the important target set at risk you have to get quite close to your oppositions coast and their ASW assets. that also means you'd have to have the three at-sea boats sitting in close. Everybody seems to assume that the target set is I'm a Dinnerjacket and Uncle Kim, whose capitals etc are relatively speaking close to the coast. That may be the case now, but in 20 years time when these boats are entering service??

Also, these enhancements to defeat AAW systems are often based around GPS which in this case really is controlled by America.......

The Old Fat One

8th Jul 2009, 15:34

hulahoop7

Not a Boffin notes one drawback of TLAM in the role you depict; there are many other technical and military problems with both the weapon and platform in the role you suggest. That is not to say that it is totally unfeasible; after all the basic concept is similar. My instinct tells me that to overcome all the shortcomings you'd end up with a capability well short of Trident, without the same relative decrease in cost.

However, stick a pin in that and for the sake of argument, say that it could be made technologically possible and yield a decent cost saving. It might just create a far bigger problem.

The UK's nuclear posture is locked into strategy and policy developed in the 1960's because we are one of five priviledged states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). the others being China, Russia, France and the US. This Treaty is accepted as discrimantory by its signatories (most, but not all, of the world's sovereign states) on the grounds that it remains the best hope for non-proliferation. On those grounds the big five are expected to play the game by everybody else - and bear in mind it is a treaty largely based on goodwill, rather than legal enforcement.

If the UK's argument for being one of the five legal nuclear powers states that it is part of the balance necessary for global nuclear peace, significantly altering our posture/policy/capability leaves other states to once again raise the question why not us? A low capability nuclear option would be a very attractive package for many countries around the globe, including a number that have all the technology they need right in place (Japan for example). Indeed this very point was made recently by the US representative on Non Proliferation.

History shows us that once a state drops out the NPT (or never signed up to it) it can go nuclear in short order - Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Add all that up and I think many countries would be of the view that either we replace Trident like for like, or we step back and unilaterally disarm our nuclear capability. Which by the way is the long term goal of the NPT.

Jackonicko

8th Jul 2009, 17:30

Nah, Sorry, but you really haven't justified it.

I still don't see that in order to have a seat at the top table (if that seat is ours only by dint of having nukes) we need to have an SLBM based nuclear capability.

I don't see real evidence or proof of the claim that ONLY an SLBM can deter Russia or China.

Nor even that only an SLBM gives a second strike capability, though that's a less contentious claim.

There's certainly no evidence that Russia and China are the threats that our nukes need to deter, nor that we need a second strike capability. This isn't 1974, you know.

And you certainly haven't justified the claim that we'd "end up with a capability well short of Trident, without the same relative decrease in cost."

You may "think many countries would be of the view that either we replace Trident like for like, or we step back and unilaterally disarm our nuclear capability", but where's the evidence for such a view?

Your arguments seem to me to be Cold War thinking at its most stagnant and dusty, with a healthy dose of single service Matelot tunnel vision thrown in for good measure.

Not_a_boffin

8th Jul 2009, 19:04

Jacko

Draw a circle of say 1200nm range from Moscow or Beijing and see how much sea room there is. Alternatively - note how many airbases are within that distance. You won't get a TLAM class cruise carried internally in anything stealthy, so you're either in SRAM territory plus unrefuelled combat radius of some form of Stealth aircraft (F35 anyone), or you're doing a large unstealthy cruise missile carrier - yet to be developed of course - from UK.

Either way, without a stealth cruise missile - again yet to be developed - there is a significant vulnerability to AAW defences of the weapon on the way in. The time element @500-600kts still militates against deterring any regime concerned only for its own survival.

"Cold war thinking" is not necessarily outdated when nuclear deterrence is the subject.......it's only "progressive" think tanks that try to label it that way.

The Real Slim Shady

8th Jul 2009, 19:48

Why go down the nuclear route?

Biological warfare is far more effective: you can make them all poorly, very poorly, on death's door or holding the door open for the next victim.

It offers a means of escalation - "Stop that or we'll give you the flu, and if you think that's bad.....don't sneeze 'cos we added a little something" - instead of simply laying waste to everything.

How effective would sowing the North Korea water supply with Viagra be?

The Old Fat One

8th Jul 2009, 20:57

Jacko,

I'm not trying to justify the independant nuclear deterrent (nor am I or was I a matelot) :)

You are correct in stating that there is a lot of cold war thinking in nuclear deterrence strategy; that's were the IND, and our current policy evolved from.

I'm merely pointing out some elements of deterrence theory (as formed by far greater minds than mine) and the reality of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

There is no evidence that advanced democracies would act in any specified way towards any change in posture by the 5 nuclear powers (which, by the way is the NPT legal status of the UK, China, Russia France and the US, irresprective of who owns nuclear weapons).

There is however, plenty of evidence that many countries observe the NPT with great reluctance because it a treaty which discriminates in favour of the five NWS. India would not sign it and developed nuclear weapons, impervious to the will of the world, as did Israel. India's weapons prompted Pakistan to go nuclear, and Israel's weapons are a major driving force for an Arab nuke one day.

Whether you like it or not, our IND exists to help maintain the nuclear status quo. Downsizing it would be destablilising as it would be identified for what it would be - the backbone of a low cost, high deterrence military strategy. Great for us, but a complete abuse of our status within the NPT. If it seems complex that's just because it is. Already analysts and Government advisors have noted that as nuclear weapons diminish (which they are obliged to do under the NPT) the relative cost of ownership diminishes and therefore the attraction of ownership increases. The end game is not clear: can we get rid of all nuclear wepons safely, or will attempting to do so unleash a sudden charge for ownership amongst those with the technology in place?

In this context many people would argue that getting rid of all our nukes is not only the most cost effective option, it is also one of the safest. Equally, many more (including our mainstream political parties) think now is not the time to give it up.

On a personal note (as all I have written is really just plagiarised from deterrence theory) I an not optimistic about the long term outcome whatever the UK chooses to do. I've always thought the genie has long since escaped the bottle and it is only a matter of time before a nutter gets the bomb and/or somebody somewhere chucks a few about.

Still, I live in Scotland and when the SNP get in they are going to get rid of the UK's IND anyway, so at least I'll be in nuclear free state.

NURSE

9th Jul 2009, 07:31

I wonder what the ratio of civil servants to service personel is now? I know it used to be compared to a single service then to save embarassment it had to be compared to 2 then all 3 services.

Twon

9th Jul 2009, 21:52

OFO,

I'd be interested to know how the SNP would manage to get rid of the UK's deterrent. Are they likely to win the next general election in Westminster then? Even if they closed all RN and RAF bases in Scotland, I doubt any nuclear armed aggressor will make any real distinction between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Besides, nuclear weapons are not exactly known for their precision and the UK is a fairly small island; even a relatively small nuke in Cornwall would affect many north of the border.

Twon

minigundiplomat

11th Jul 2009, 00:08

Time to sit back and watch the disintegration of our forces.

Why not, it's our turn. The unelected cyclops and his cabinet of deadbeats, union reps and unemployable retards have managed to screw up every other facet of this country, we are all thats left for a full house.

The current conflict in Afghanistan requires will, determination and organisation. Unfortunately, the Taleban seem to have more of these qualities than our own government.

Unfortunately, the imminent general election will come too late, and is unlikely to change much. The tories will get a grip of the economy, but seem equally disinterested in the Armed Forces.
They will have enough of a job stopping the UK from becoming Burkina Faso, and defence funding will, I fear, be spent on bandages, tubigrips and chalk.

Flights leave Heathrow all day everyday, by the way.

Willi B

11th Jul 2009, 05:14

Flights leave Heathrow all day everyday, by the way

Opening Britain's floodgates (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/opening-britains-floodgates-20090710-dg21.html)

Bunker Mentality

11th Jul 2009, 14:09

All they've announced is a Green Paper. The Defence Review itself wont happen until after the election.

UKPLC is broke. Deliverance is probably right - we can afford about £30Bn. So what do we [U]have[U] to keep doing, and what can we stop doing, and how much do these things cost?

I suspect that, if we keep a submarine-based deterrent, our conventional capabilities will be reduced to a zoo's worth of paper tigers. By which I mean, we will have to give up any realistic of prospect of being able to act independently, or lead a coalition, against any force more capable than the West Side Boys.

Melchett01

12th Sep 2009, 13:55

Talking to chums working in various HQs and MOD, there is apparently a rumour now doing the rounds that there is serious consideration to cutting the RAF to around 30,000 in any coming defence review.

Has anyone else heard similar rumours? If so, what exactly constitutes a viable Air Force - where is the thin red line beyond which we may as well pack up and go home?

Just out of interest, and to put that figure into some sort of context - 30,000is the same size of Birmingham City FC's ground. If that wasn't bad enough, at 30,000 you could easily fit all the RAF into Leicester, Coventry, Southampton, Derby, Leeds (now a 3rd Division in old money team) FCs' stadiums with seats left over. God now I'm depressed.:\

CrabInCab

12th Sep 2009, 16:00

Talking to chums working in various HQs and MOD, there is apparently a rumour now doing the rounds that there is serious consideration to cutting the RAF to around 30,000 in any coming defence review.

Redundancy, don't have to wait until IPP, result!!
:ok:

I have heard similar stories relating to all 3 services from a very well placed RN source.

Donkey497

12th Sep 2009, 16:15

To get back onto the subject...........

Has anyone thought of the eventual effect of requiring civil servants (& government ministers) in a particular department had to have either a relevant professional qualification or five year's experience [acknowledged by a national body] in the subject.

That would mean that Alastair Darling & Gordon Brown would be barred from the chancellor's job, as neither have any financial qualifications. NHS civil servants would have nursing or medical qualifications, MOD civil servants would have either five year's service or a very few might have lectured at Sandhurst, Dartmouth etc.

This would give us a well educated civil service, with the benefit of seasoned active practitioners amongst them as well.

This would probably remove the vast swathes of overpaid, under employed deadbeats from the civil service. It would certainly remove any need for this government to employ its favourite fetish of throwing vast sums of money to consultants who appear to have little if any concept of the projects they are supposed to complete, but are quite happy to recommend the services of other consultants, usually at higher prices, or we find out that Gordon & Darling Darling have sold off another government arm for a pittance to some of their fly by night chums who are now being paid ten times what we used to pay to do a tenth of the job they used to

Distance may lend credence to apparent wisdom, but all we've got out of this sorry mess is smoke and mirrors & the country in an unending mortgage just after we finished paying the USA for World War II.

If we are to have a review, the politicians need to define what they expect of the services, then leave the service personnel to determine what they need to do they job, then the politicians need to come up with the funds to do it. But they will need to stop throwing cash about willy nilly to anything which does not turn a profit for the country.

Modern Elmo

12th Sep 2009, 16:26

By which I mean, we will have to give up any realistic of prospect of being able to act independently, or lead a coalition, against any force more capable than the West Side Boys.

Are these "West Side Boys" a Muslim community after-school youth group? Surely you aren't threatening them?

Pontius Navigator

12th Sep 2009, 16:52

We have a job going. A sqn ldr ATC and a flt lt Int have both applied has also an ASDA Manager who has a glowing CV. The job is as an executive in a military unit, a job previously done by an RO.

Compare and discuss.

Modern Elmo

12th Sep 2009, 17:05

...

Summary

The projected service life of the US Ohio-class Trident submarines, built in Groton, Connecticut, is about 44 years. The 14 US submarines currently in service, which were built in the 1980s and 1990s, are due to be retired between 2029 and 2042, when the Trident D5 missiles they launch are also due to be taken out of service.

But, according to the Government’s White Paper [1], the original design life of the UK Vanguard-class Trident submarines, built in Barrow-in-Furness, was only 25 years, but it may be possible to extend this to 30 years of service life. As a result, the 4 UK submarines currently in service, which were built in the 1990s, are due to be retired between 2022 and 2028, that is, before any of the US submarines.

The British submarines spend a much smaller proportion of their life at sea. So, other things being equal, one would expect them to have a longer service life than their American equivalents. However, if the White Paper is to be believed, the most one can expect from them is a service life that is around 50% less.

This proposition that the UK Trident submarines can be operated for a maximum of 30 years is the fundamental assumption in the White Paper. From it, the Government concludes that replacement submarines must be built to enter service from 2024 onwards.

A second major assumption in the White Paper is that it will take 17 years to design and build a second generation of Trident submarines (to do the same job as the first generation). Hence, the Government concludes that a decision must be made in 2007 to build a second generation and to start design work.

... Had the UK bought Ohio-class submarines from the US, instead of building Vanguard-class submarines in the 1990s, then the oldest submarines would have been serviceable to around 2038 – and a UK decision about replacement would not be necessary until well into the 2020s, instead of in 2007.

Of course, buying American submarines was (and is) politically impossible, since, if both missiles and submarines were made in the USA, it would be next to impossible to maintain the fiction that Britain has an “independent” nuclear deterrent.

...

If the service life of the existing UK Trident submarines could be extended further, as Garwin et al suggest may be possible, so that the oldest is retired in 2029 (like the oldest US submarine) rather than 2022 (as projected in the White Paper) the possibility would open up of the UK emulating the US and phasing in the use of the new US missiles and new UK submarine launch platforms from 2029 onwards.

But that’s impossible – the White Paper says the maximum life of the UK submarines is 30 years. Because of the lower standard, and much shorter life, of the British-built Trident submarines, Britain must build a second generation of Trident submarines to enter service from 2024 onwards, submarines that may have to be modified later to launch the new US missiles, since, after 2042, there may be no serviceable Trident D5 missiles for them to use.

...

Annex A US Trident replacement system

The following is an extract from the Nuclear Posture Review, submitted to the US Congress by the Defense Department on 31 December 2001 [8], about a Trident replacement system, that is, missiles (SLBMs: submarine-launched ballistic missiles) and submarines (SSBNs: Sub-Surface Ballistic Nuclear-powered).

(Note that SSN stands for Sub-Surface Nuclear, that is, a nuclear-powered conventionally-armed submarine.)

"Follow-on [replacement] SSBN: ... DoD [Department of Defense] assumes the continued requirement for a sea-based strategic nuclear force. Therefore, the timeframe when the next generation SSBN will need to be deployed is about 2029 when the first of the remaining operational Trident SSBNs is planned to be retired. The Navy is currently studying two options for future follow-on SSBNs: (1) a variant of Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines (SSN); and (2) a dedicated SSBN (either a new design or a derivative of the Trident SSBN) ... If the decision is made to develop a new dedicated SSBN, a program would have to be initiated around 2016 to ensure that a new platform is available in 2029." (p. 42)

David Morrison
23 February 2007
Labour & Trade Union Review
David Morrison's Homepage (http://www.david-morrison.org.uk)

Decision to replace Trident submarines is premature, say US experts (http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/nuclear-weapons/trident-submarines.htm)

tucumseh

12th Sep 2009, 17:18

Donkey

Has anyone thought of the eventual effect of requiring civil servants (& government ministers) in a particular department had to have either a relevant professional qualification or five year's experience [acknowledged by a national body] in the subject.

For my part, when I joined the Civil Service (as a prospective aeronautical engineer) I was told that it would be about 15 years before I attained the necessary competence and experience to get onto the lowest rung of project management - if that was to be my chosen career path. I was called a young whippersnapper when I did it in 12 (5 promotions).

At that most junior PM grade, I could not be marked "fitted" for promotion until I had managed projects in a range of engineering disciplines, in Land, Sea and (of course) Air, in every stage of the "procurement cycle" (i.e. Concept, Development etc). 120+ projects later I got one step up the PE ladder. I accepted this, because in my department the rule was applied equally and fairly.

Then we got 21 year old direct entrants, who did 2 years and then grade skipped to be boss; never having managed anything but the simplest task, and occasionally a project. And never having had to retrospectively attain and demonstrate the competencies and experience demanded of others. Then CDP got shot of the experienced staffs, saying PE did not need engineers to manage technology projects. His solution, as you rightly point out, was consultants. The aforesaid PMs became simple consultancy task managers. THAT is where the root of many procurement problems lie. Some old hands remain, but they are despised and sidelined in DE&S.

I try to avoid commenting on serving officers posted to IPTs, but I'm sure they all have the necessary experience and can tell you all about their 50 most successful projects. :E

VinRouge

12th Sep 2009, 17:20

Talking to chums working in various HQs and MOD, there is apparently a rumour now doing the rounds that there is serious consideration to cutting the RAF to around 30,000 in any coming defence review.Cool. Thats plod Flt and PEd Flt a gonner then!

What could you expect? I hear

12 Months tax-free lump sum
Gratuity on reaching your IPP
Full pension past IPP non index linked to 55
Index linked from IPP to 55 on 55th birthday and RPI from thence on

If so, where do I sign up?

Biggus

12th Sep 2009, 17:38

Is that the highly scientific and efficient way that a Defence Review is conducted?

Come up with a nice round number out of thin air, 30,000 this time (wasn't it 40,000 last time?) and then work out who you need to get rid of to get down to that figure:ugh:

Melchett01

12th Sep 2009, 17:52

Apparently the Air Force is just too expensive - or so the logic goes behind this rumour.

But if you cut the Air Force - or any of the Services - back to such an extent that they really aren't capable of carrying out the duties required of them, then surely in terms of value for money, that means that whatever is left simply isn't value for money, making it ripe for abolition.

Where is that tipping point for the 21st century RAF?

VinRouge

12th Sep 2009, 18:23

I can see us out of the stan within the next government term, purely down to cost and public apathy.

God Help us all when that happens...

The good news; despite what the Tories are saying, I expect there to be equally painful cuts in benefits and the NHS, as they say, no pain, no gain.

We have been living well beyond our means in this country for 10 years now. May I now suggest it is payback time (and then some?)

Not_a_boffin

12th Sep 2009, 18:41

Smells more like an options thinkpiece. Similar tales doing the rounds last year for a 15000 "person" Navy. Doesn't mean it's going to happen - that said, indicates the budget led "people are too expensive" mindset in MB/Whitehall.......

minigundiplomat

12th Sep 2009, 19:00

I can see us out of the stan within the next government term, purely down to cost and public apathy.

God Help us all when that happens...

Agree, and its going to be eyewateringly painful. However, the NHS and education have been ringfenced by the Tories, so it won't be an 'across the board' affair.

VinRouge

12th Sep 2009, 19:15

They havent even seen the state of the public finances properly yet...

Just wait and see what happens when they open the book on PFI/Pensions/un-budgeted commitments

The NHS will get its comeuppance, just as we will.

Jackonicko

12th Sep 2009, 23:20

Is that really the best you can do?

Go back and watch CBeebies.

Modern Elmo

13th Sep 2009, 00:37

This from Richard Beedall's Web site:

The government identified a number of options for future of the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent, in approximate order of increasing cost these were:

•Don't replace Trident - leaving France as the only EU member with nuclear weapons;
•A small force of vulnerable land based ballistic missiles.
•Ship based ballistic missiles - probably initially Trident.
•Build a new class of SSBN's, initially carrying extended life Trident missiles or a replacement submarine ballistic missile system.
•Develop a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead, air launched by a force of 20 RAF strike aircraft supported by 20 dedicated refuelling aircraft.

A submarine based solution was announced as the preferred choice in December 2006. Initial government estimates were that the programme would cost about £20 billion, perhaps about £9 billion of which (in current money) is for the replacement of the replacing the four Vanguard’s with another class of 16 tube ballistic missile submarines. If this money was taken solely from the RN's current share of the MOD's equipment budget then no other new ships or submarines could be ordered for the RN for a period of at least 15 years.

SLEP'ing the Vanguard's

In addition to new build, MOD officials investigated the costs involved with a service life extension programme (SLEP) for the four existing Vanguard class submarines, and their Trident missiles, re-entry vehicles and W-76 derivative nuclear warheads. Since 2006 the government and MOD have apparently assumed as a near given a 5 year extension in the V's service life, from 25 to 30 years.
Developments in the USA (see below) indicates that it might be possible for the UK to economically extend the system to serve for yet another 10-15 years - but this would be very costly. At the very least the boats would unexpectedly need another expensive long overhaul period and refuelling (LOP(R)), and their hulls and nuclear steam plant would need to be critically inspected and recertified. Some UK experts (e.g. Commodore Tim Hare RN (Rtd)) believe that the Vanguard's are being too hard worked for a full SLEP (extending their service life by 20 years) to be possible, rather than the 5 year life extension widely discussed. it's also worth noting that SLEP'ing the V's would almost inevitably result in the loss of a national nuclear submarine construction capability, and this will have to be factored in.

Across the Atlantic, the US Department of Defense is pressing ahead with a Trident II D-5 life extension (LE) program, the first contracts for which were awarded in 2002. The USN now expects to operate the Trident II D5 missile from SLEP'ed Ohio class submarines until about 2042. Also, on 26 May 2005 the US Department of Defense announced the award to Lockheed Martin a $9 million contract in regards to development of an affordable Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM). The SLIRBM will have a maximum diameter of 32.5 inches, less than half the diameter of a Trident II, but a range not exceeding 2000 nm, again less than half that of a Trident II. The missile could accommodate both nuclear and non-nuclear GPS guided warheads. Allegedly, UK MOD officials have already been involved in discussions about the project.

http://frn.beedall.com/fsm.htm (http://frn.beedall.com/fsm.htm)

Modern Elmo

13th Sep 2009, 00:56

The SLIRBM will have a maximum diameter of 32.5 inches

First Virginia Class Payload Tube Increases Force's Versatility
Story Number: NNS090521-02

5/21/2009

From Program Executive Office, Submarines Public Affairs
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Program Executive Office Submarines' Virginia-class Program Office marked a substantial milestone May 15 with the delivery of the first Virginia payload tube (VPT).

Built by General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB), the VPT arrived at GDEB's Virginia-class shipbuilding partner Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding's Newport News (NGSB-NN) facility for inclusion in Pre-Commissioning Unit North Dakota's (SSN 784) bow. As part of a teaming arrangement, NGSB-NN builds all Virginia-class bows while GDEB constructs all of the VPTs.

As the lead submarine being built under the third, or Block III contract, North Dakota will be the first Virginia-class submarine equipped with VPTs.
Unlike the first 10 Virginia-class submarines that housed 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles in individual Vertical Launch System (VLS) tubes, all Virginia-class submarines beginning with North Dakota will utilize two, 87.5-inch diameter, 35-plus ton tubes to house and launch the same number of missiles.

http://www.navy.mil/search/print.asp?story_id=45461&VIRIN=58533&imagetype=1&page=1 (http://www.navy.mil/search/print.asp?story_id=45461&VIRIN=58533&imagetype=1&page=1)

32.5", 87.5", hmmm.

Modern Elmo

15th Sep 2009, 02:18

...

The Block III submarines will be the first of the class to be fitted with the Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT), a development of the modified former ballistic missile launch tubes in the Ohio-class converted cruise missile subs. Two VPTs in the bow of each of the new submarines will replace 12 vertical launch tubes used for Tomahawk cruise missiles in previous submarines. The 92-inch-wide VPTs each can hold six cruise missiles.

U.S. Navy Orders 8 New Subs - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3875058)

Block III: The Changes

The most obvious change is the switch from 12 vertical launch tubes, to 12 missiles in 2 tubes that use technology from the Ohio Class special forces/ strike SSGN program. The Virginia’s hull has a smaller cross-section than the converted ballistic missile SSGNs, so the “6-shooters” will be shorter and a bit wider. Nevertheless, they will share a great deal of common technology, allowing innovations on either platform to be incorporated into the other submarine class during major maintenance milestones. Net savings are about $8 million to program baseline costs.

8 more USN Virginia class submarines? (Block III, revised bow) (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=82264.0)

Further, replacing 12 vertical launch tubes with two 92-inch VPTs not only reduces construction and lifecycle costs, but also significantly expands their ability to accept future payloads.

http://thetension.*************/2008/12/us-navy-signs-contract-for-8-virginia.html

"The VPTs provide commonality with the SSGN tubes, so payloads developed for one can go into the other," said Rear Adm. William Hilarides, Program Executive Officer, Submarines. "This affords the submarine force incredible flexibility and versatility to the far future."

First Virginia Class Payload Tube Increases Force's Versatility (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/05/mil-090521-nns02.htm)

Norman Stanley Fletcher

15th Sep 2009, 02:39

I left the RAF on voluntary redundancy in 1995 - it is by far the best move I have ever made. I gave my heart and soul to it when I was in, but amazingly discovered a great world outside once I left. Since that time I have watched with ever-growing incredulity at the state of our armed forces. Alas, the people who run them have spent a huge amount of time and money ensuring there are enough homosexuals employed to keep Stonewall happy, but not enough ordinary folk to ensure we can effectively run a war. I have not the slightest doubt that 'root and branch' means in practice 'way less people and equipment'. Needless to say, once we have finally guaranteed we have smaller armed forces than the average African banana republic, the nation will be assured by whichever Prime Minister is in power at the time that of course we have sufficient defences to save our nation from all known aggressors. As long as the Argentinians do not try to invade the Falklands again, or the fire brigade does not go on strike over the winter, then I am sure he will be proven right.

Tragically, our armed services are now no more than a peope's militia - the main difference being that a people's militia would have more manpower. Take the money and run chaps - our nation is, alas, on its last legs, and one of those legs is about to be amputated above the knee.

Pontius Navigator

15th Sep 2009, 06:41

I notice that 'root and branch' is singularly appropriate given our man's previous work on the environmental committee.

Jabba_TG12

15th Sep 2009, 08:31

Some very interesting points raised over the last three pages, along with the more mournful, impending feelings of doom.

This is essentially a sop during the party conference season.
Given this governments propensity for governing by headline chasing within a 24-hour news cycle rather than looking forward medium or long term, I think we can reasonably expect any such greenpaper to be extremely long on dumbed down soundbites and very very short on actual substance, very short on what exactly NL may have in mind for the future. Someone else has already alluded to this that to be able to revise properly not just your defence spending, but also your entire strategy in such a short space of time is barking.

Again, as has already been said, you've got to know what you expect the mission to be for your forces, what the threat level is going to be and from where, what you're likely to be involved in before you can start reasonably equipping and recruiting, etc. Unless you're just going to chuck piles of money at it and end up with a broad spectrum capability. That option, plainly is not on offer.

So, what do we expect of our forces? Does anyone really know? Less inter-nation conflict and more against disparate bands of extremists? Or is it foreseen that the likes of Iran, North Korea, even Pakistan or Venezuela, or Libya, or whoever may emerge as threats to world peace and stability? What is the percieved wisdom?

What should be the driver, if anything, for this future strategy, if we dont know ourselves? The overall NATO mission, if we are going to stay in it?
Do we still think we're a world power, purely by virtue of being a permanent member of the UNSC (again, only because we were one of the 5 original nuclear powers)? I cant help but think that those who consistently think and expect us to punch way above our weight are as guilty of living in the past as those who are in danger of sleepwalking us into being salami sliced into non-existance. Is it about time that we stopped playing PCSO to the US's World Policeman and let the rest of the world get on with it? Arguably so, I may think (IMVHO, naturally...)

The very least we ought to be concerned about is defence of the realm, the homeland. Given that we only have at any one time, six ships to protect the UK coastline, I think we might be a bit pushed. I'm not even going to go into AD.... those who know will know what has happened on that front over the last ten years and how it is being led at the moment and the direction it is going in. It is, beyond doubt, an embarrassment and lest I be accused of looking backwards, has achieved more than what a certain undertall Austrian with questionable facial hair managed to achieve seventy odd years ago.

At least, once you know what the mission is, then you can tailor your procurement and your force sizes accordingly. This is something we have not got at the moment.

As soon as I saw the words "root and branch", I was worried. Main reason being yes, this is what is needed, but the root and branch bit that needs reform is primarily in Main Building and Whitehall. I cannot see this supposed review/reform getting anywhere near the same postcode, let alone having any effect on what happens in MB/HMG. The effects of FLF and SDR 98 were felt (from my own RAF experience) more at Group and Command level, with most things being pulled into Wycombe as CINCUKAIR sought to protect and consolidate his empire. I cannot see that it would have been any different for the other two services. So, the part that needed reform more than any other, ie * level and above, never even got a sniff of it.

The mere fact that Jock Stirrup has got the brazen chutzpah to say that the 1998 SDR has served us well, given the situation we find ourselves in just compounds the fact that the man has been singularly unsuited to command at the highest level since the year dot. Unfortunately, with the exceptions of Dannatt and Richards, this is the regrettable calibre of leadership our services are left with, each one trading in their backbones for the extra thick stripe on the arm and the associated pensions.

If a significant part of the percieved problem is money, then as the old adage goes, you have to follow it to see where it is going. Despite paying lip service to Joint Operations, it still remains exactly that. Lip service. We still have far too much single-service stovepiping in terms of procurement and policy. The single service chiefs are still far too obsessed with their own toys regardless of how they should fit into the overall defence strategy. At the current juncture, I'm not sure I'd consider us properly equipped for anything at all, let alone Herrick.

Unfortunately when your leaders sell out the futures of their services to the Treasury, this is what you end up with. Some of the accounting practises in MOD have been breathtaking, but it is starting to catch up with them, they are running out of mirrors and the supply of smoke is not what it was. Shifting things off the balance sheet and outsourcing virtually everything in sight and putting the rest on PFI is maybe financially acceptable, but it diminishes the capability of the services to deliver against the objectives. Yes, there had to be some peace dividend after the end of the Cold War. But, civilianisation has gone far too far, particularly in the supply, distribution and engineering chains - and even considering PFI for AAR, a strategic force multiplier is, to my mind, utter madness. These financial sleights-of-hand are all well and good for short term political gain, but I dont seriously believe that this is the way to defend the nation. Outsourcing has gone far too far, at the expense of expertise that the services had in abundance not ten years ago and particularly from an IT perspective, this has been wasted in favour of outsourcing everything to EDS/Atlas.

Well, I started off thinking that I could come up with something constructive, but I'm afraid my deep rooted cynicism has taken over. I'm afraid that so long as the service chiefs continue to put their own advancement ahead of the requirements of their services and the mission objectives as a whole, then it is only likely to get worse. They stood back and watched what were world class forces wither on the vine 10-15 years ago and they will do the same again. They will continue to waste money hand over fist because they dont know any better and dont want to know. They will continue to outsource and consult for everything because they still do not understand the expertise that they have sacrificed to save their own necks. Root and branch reform of MOD will not get within the M25, let alone within the Underground Zone 1. As long as procurement is politically led, rather than buying off the shelf, you're always going to pay way over the odds and wait an awful lot longer for something that either doesnt do what you need it to do now, let alone when you ordered it, let alone when it is going to be delivered. And lessons are never learned, they are only identified.

Its down to a heinous failure of leadership at single, joint service and ministerial level and a deep seated antipathy to the armed forces from our current PM, surrounded by both other ministers and MP's far too spineless and self serving to do anything about it.

Personally, I can understand those who appear to be thinking that its time to get out before it gets any worse. Because it will, for sure and our current political and military leaders and their pet causes are not worth dying for.

In short, a completely hollow gesture.

Milarity

15th Sep 2009, 08:33

Nurse, Ref your 9 Jul question on the ratio of Civil Servants to Military.

The organisation I work for used to be 100% light blue, headed by a Wg Cdr, split into 3 Sqns of 4 Flts, lead by Sqn Ldrs and Flt Lts accordingly. Each of those posts was deemed digital and essential, so no detachments during a tour.

We are now lead by a Sqn Ldr, with 2 JOs and 7 Civil Servants. Our outputs have increased and our wage bill has plummeted. The logic is simple; if the uniformed man cannot deploy, civilianise his post for half the salary. Your CS employee does not get posted every 2-3 years so becomes competent at his job; therefore overall numbers can be cut. He will have no military distractions, and so puts in a full day’s work at the primary job he is paid to do.

I well aware of the many shortcomings to this argument, but if civilianisation is used in the right places can be to everyone’s benefit.

Donkey, Ref your comment that the Civil Service contains vast swathes of overpaid, under employed deadbeats.

I and my 6 CS colleagues referred to above had all reached SNCO or Senior Officer rank before our posts were civilianised. We all to a man retain our Service work ethic. Furthermore, I regularly work alongside other CS organisations and, in my experience, see a similar mix of quality to the uniformed services. It is easy to target the CS, and I can give you plenty of examples of complete wasters wearing uniform.

I am all in favour of a fair Defence Review. But will we get one?

SirPercyWare-Armitag

15th Sep 2009, 09:22

I hope the "root and branch" review includes training officers of all ranks and from all Services the importance of saying "no". And not just being a "yes man" hiding behind the phrase "can do".

Perhaps they could start with the courses run at Shrivenham? :E

cornish-stormrider

15th Sep 2009, 12:12

God help us all.

My crystal ball has now shattered (ok I threw it at the idiot lantern with the one eyed nostril miner on it). Get used to one thing, CUTS. They will prioritise everything else above defense and we (collectively as I still feel the pain and stand for thr anthem) are going to get absolutely shafted.

As soon as the Tories get in and have a look at the books, hatchets will come out and we will all be in the cakky. There is going to be blood and it is going to be painful. I am recommending you all get private healthcare squared away and scrimp and save like hell in your personal lives.

There is a storm coming and we will not be able to get out of it. I can see a revolution upon us if we are not carerful, it's canned food and shotgun time.

Jabba_TG12

15th Sep 2009, 12:55

I shouldnt laugh at the canned food and shotgun line, but... I couldn't help it. :}

What is left of the English have, to their shame, become too supine to revolt. Apart from the reconstituted Milwall hooligans who form the core of the English Defence League, and the BNP, who'se agenda is less than pure, who would do it? Let alone who could do it? :oh:

The services wouldn't anyway and couldn't, even if they wanted to. They dont have the numbers or the inspirational leadership. And I cant see it being part of Dannatt's retirement plans either... :hmm:

Forget the semantics of the politics of it, think about it in terms of personalities... the UK does not have a Musharraf, a Khomeini, a Castro or a Guevara, not a Walensa, a Mandela or a even a Tsvangirai in its numbers. No-one who could inspire anyone to make the sacrifices necessary.

All that you'd end up with is unco-ordinated street rioting by dumbed down unemployable hoodies in the northern post-industrial wastelands that would easily be dealt with by the police and would serve no political purpose except as a lever for more surveillance and more erosion of civil liberties. :sad:

Plus, the police have been so heavily politicized that any attempt at insurrection would be sniffed out and snuffed out within 24 hours at best or at worst, consistently undermined and then wiped out within a week.

Those who could have inspired (and conspired?) and took part are all either way too old or too dead already.

Sorry.... its going to be down to the lumpen, dumbed down, X-box playing, Celeb worshipping proles to sort this one out and get some political savvy and start taking an interest in politics instead of the apathy that we have at the moment. It will take a minimum of at least a generation to turn that around. Nothing will change. It'll just be more of the same and future generations will be left to pick up the tab. :ugh:

Lets just hope that our backs arent going to be against the wall in the meantime. As I've said before, if those who made the ultimate sacrifice in WW1 and WW2 could have forseen how things would turn out, I should imagine they would have had grave doubts as to whether it was worth it.

Toadstool

15th Sep 2009, 13:50

Tories pinpoint three defence projects for cuts in 'snap Budget' - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6835280.ece)

I wonder what other cuts they have under their sleeves, especially with regard to ISTAR assets. If I vote for the Tories, does that mean that I effectively vote for redundancy?

Jig Peter

15th Sep 2009, 13:59

While the politicians manoeuvre and spin before the imminent party conferences, "big announcements" are being whispered about "massive" defence cuts, with the rest of the Typhoon programme, the A400 and "carriers" figuring in the latest reports about Conservative plans (subject to break clauses about which the hopeful incumbent says he knows nothing, thus leaving a useful get-out for himself).
Nothing unusual in all this, but nobody has come up with the better, more accurate way to spell "Chancellor" - just leave out the "h" (and if necessary for the pedantic, change the "o" to "e", but the meaning should be clear before that). This too isn't new - the various occupants of the Woolsack have been at it for a good 50 years as far as defence goes, whatever their political "colour".
Political "leaders" may say what they would like, defence chiefs and the industry may try their hardest to put those wishes into effect, but the Canceller and his merry henchpersons have made sure that very little trickled towards the "sharp end".
Poor Britannia indeed (in both senses of the word)...

PS (Mods check for taste ?) Slight Freudian slip in the above post, about "supreme sacrifice" ... "grave doubts" ???

elderlypart-timer

16th Sep 2009, 08:33

As I've posted before the MoD has a big windfall coming if they play their cards right. There's a big sale of MoD radio spectrum coming up that could raise up to £10bn. If those MPs who claim to be committed to defence got their act together they could put a lot of pressure on both Darling and Osborne to ring fence that money for the services, as they did on the sale of Chelsea Barracks.

Whether we need all of the big projects is a question that clearly we disagree about. At the moment all our efforts are focused on non-state actors but can we assume that this will always be the case?

In the last few years the Russian Government closed down airflilights over large parts of the Norwegian Sea during a Russian Navy 'exercise', invaded Georgia and continue to refuse to ratify the CFE Treaty. It is claimed that unofficial supporters of the Russian Government conducted a large scale cyber attack on a NATO ally, murdered a political exile living in London and continue to murder journalists on a regular basis.

On the other hand the Cold War is over and I don't think the Russian Armed Forces are anything like fit for purpose. The number of political prisoners in Russia today is nothing like the scale of the Soviet era, and the judiciary is far more independent.

Nothing is inevitable and we do have choices.

Squirrel 41

16th Sep 2009, 22:27

Jabba TG12

What an excellent post. Thank-you. However, I hope you're wrong; I fear you're right.

Norman Stanley Fletcher

I don't know what makes you think that,

"Since that time I have watched with ever-growing incredulity at the state of our armed forces. Alas, the people who run them have spent a huge amount of time and money ensuring there are enough homosexuals employed to keep Stonewall happy, but not enough ordinary folk to ensure we can effectively run a war."

is anything other than ignorant and unacceptable bigotry. Would you have typed this if you substituted "black" "yellow" or "female" for "homosexual"?

For the record, the small number of homosexuals I've worked with in the forces have been uniformly excellent and I'd follow them to war without question. They've put up with a huge amount of narrow-minded prejudice like yours, and they're fine officers - well above average.

I presume that there are some lazy chislers out there who happen to be homosexuals - and that there were some homosexuals in the forces before equality. I also know that there are some lazy chislers out there who happen to be heterosexual - and I'd suggest that you judge people based on their work ethic and skill, rather than who they are sleeping with.

And no, I'm not gay. But it shouldn't make any difference if I was.

S41

lasernigel

16th Sep 2009, 22:47

All that you'd end up with is unco-ordinated street rioting by dumbed down unemployable hoodies in the northern post-industrial wastelands that would easily be dealt with by the police and would serve no political purpose except as a lever for more surveillance and more erosion of civil liberties

I resent the opinion that say the "Northern wastelands", I think there is enough or more than enough violence commited South of Watford. I served for 13 yrs in the Army and you will find that a lot of the poor young cattle fodder that are being lost in Afganistan are from the "North".

Not going away from the thread our politicians on both sides are so hypocricital of their attitude to " Defence of the realm" that it makes me sick to my stomach.
Defence is a priority in this time of fanatics and wayward regimes. Having a Nuclear deterent always gives the option of retaliation at it's most extreme, though I really hope it never comes to that.
Ever since Blair thought himself as a typical Labour politician to commit our troops to wherever he could without thinking about the consequences the "plot was lost".
STOP the waste and cut back the bureaucrats created by this tinpot government with a non elected leader.:ugh::ugh:

Modern Elmo

17th Sep 2009, 03:00

Conventional Trident

The Pentagon proposed the Conventional Trident Modification program in 2006 to diversify its strategic options, as part of a broader long-term strategy to develop worldwide rapid strike capabilities, dubbed "Prompt Global Strike".

The US $503 million program would have converted existing Trident II missiles (presumably two missiles per submarine) into conventional weapons, by fitting them with modified Mk4 reentry vehicles equipped with GPS for navigation update and a reentry guidance and control (trajectory correction) segment to perform 10 m class impact accuracy. No explosive is said to be used since the reentry vehicle's mass and hypersonic impact velocity provide sufficient mechanical energy and "effect". The second version of conventional warhead is fragmentation version that would disperse thousands of tungsten rods which could obliterate an area of 3000 square feet. (appoximately 280 square meters).[6] It offered the promise of accurate conventional strikes with little warning and flight time.

The primary drawback would have been establishing sufficient warning systems so that other nuclear countries would not mistake it for a nuclear launch which could provoke a counterattack. For that reason among others, this project raised a substantial debate before US Congress for the FY07 Defense budget, but also internationally.[7] Russian President Vladimir Putin, among others, warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces," Putin said in May 2006.[8]
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(missile)

"(Conventional Trident Modification)'s advantages over other conventional strike capabilities is its ability to provide prompt response to threats around the globe," he said. "The (program) will allow national leadership to act in a crisis without a lengthy military buildup." Additional benefits of the Conventional Trident Modification are that it requires no forward-deployed or visible presence, has few if any requirements for allied overflight permission, and gives the enemy little or no warning before a strike, the spokesman said.

To ensure other countries don't mistake a conventional missile launch for a nuclear missile attack, DoD is developing confidence-building measures, such as advance notification and shared early warnings, he said. Also, DoD can borrow notification procedures from its long history of test launches of dual-role weapons systems. The Conventional Trident Modification program gives the United States a long-range strike option against targets beyond the range of current systems or that are heavily defended, the spokesman said. Also, the deployment of the program will send a message to adversaries that the United States is prepared to defend its national interests, he said. "If needed in the war on terrorism, the (Conventional Trident Modification program) can help deter state actors from sponsoring terrorism by imposing the threat of prompt conventional attack," he said.

This project supports efforts for both Advanced Strike Capability which will demonstrate the feasibility of producing intermediate size low cost rockets, and the development of a modification to the TRIDENT II (D5) strategic weapon system (SWS) to allow it to carry conventional payloads. The Conventional TRIDENT Modification (CTM) will adapt the TRIDENT II (D5) missile to carry conventional payloads.

Conventional TRIDENT Modification (CTM) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/ctm.htm)

On 25 August 2003 the Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs [SSP] issued a Request for Information (RFI) to determine the latest plans and programs including technology challenges and proposed solutions for affordable Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (SLIRBMs), including launch considerations and potential payloads. Responses to this RFI were used by the Government to select presentations to be given at the upcoming SLIRBM Technical Exchange or to otherwise be reviewed by the government.

The SLIRBM requirements include: 1. System must be affordable 2. Range - IRBM 3. Missile diameter - 32.5 inches maximum [ie, half that of the current Trident-2] 4. Both conventional and nuclear payloads to be considered 5. Payload weights, diameters and length to be consistent with missile dimensions and range 6. Conventional payload system to have GPS accuracy 7. Missile subsystem hardened to Space Grade 8. Control of collateral damage to be considered (e.g., stage debris control) 9. Intermediate range ballistic missiles, including their payloads, and all of the launcher subsystem except for electronics, are to be contained within the 86 inch diameter TRIDENT missile launch tube 10. Usable missile tube length (for missile, payload and launcher) of 36 feet maximum.

...

SLIRBM is a conventional missile concept that builds on the heritage the two companies share in US Navy strategic missile development. Lockheed Martin and ATK provide the US Navy with the submarine-launched Trident D5 nuclear ballistic missile.

SLIRBM is designed to precisely deliver a conventional payload on target at ranges in excess of 1100 miles within 10-15 minutes of launch. ...

Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM) / Submarine Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/slirbm.htm)

Jabba_TG12

17th Sep 2009, 06:24

Nigel:

Apologies, strike the word "Northern". Just leave it as "Post Industrial Wasteland".

Peter:

Yes, I guess the closing line could have been better thought out.

I stand by the rest of the post though.

As another reader has pointed out, I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

Pontius Navigator

17th Sep 2009, 07:11

Modern Elmo, you are interesting and exasperating in equal measure.

Sometimes you espouse an interesting point of view and at others you post loads of drivel from wikepedia with out comment. Please use a selective quote, post a link, make a comment, and keep it short!

elderlypart-timer

17th Sep 2009, 09:44

Bob Ainsworth, 15 Sept 2009

"In the 21st century it would appear that the threat of state on state warfare has receded.
While it is true that Britain faces no direct territorial challenge, as Hew Strachan has pointed out, the UK has been involved in four wars in the last 30 years - to recover the Falkands, the two Gulf Wars, and in Kosovo - where the opposing armed forces were those of another state.
Deterrence, both conventional and nuclear, remains a valid strategy.

But we have also been pitted against irregular forces – as in Iraq following the collapse of Saddam’s regime and now in Afghanistan.
Each of these conflicts carries within them aspects of both regular and irregular warfare.

The academic and intellectual debate on planning for defence against these different threats still rages.
I tend to agree with General Petraeus’s comment that “the truth is not to be found in any of these schools of thought, but rather in the debate among them”.

The growing trend in warfare is likely to be complexity - whether at sea, on land, or in the air – or in all probability an interdependent combination of all three."

If we agree with this view then what does this mean for the armed forces, and if it means more money can we wait a couple of years until the economy picks up?

Jabba_TG12

17th Sep 2009, 10:14

OK.
So, if we accept what SofS has to say at face value (thinks: Almost certainly written for him by someone in MB, theres no way political animal of Bob's type would have that firm a grasp on the subject), then if that is the threat... what do we require to deliver against it?

"While it is true that Britain faces no direct territorial challenge"

Which means, its about projection, yes? Influence on the world stage? Who (apart from the obvious players) in the world, let alone Europe, may face a direct territorial challenge in the near future? Israel? Iran? North Korea? Syria? Pakistan? Somalia?

So... when is it going to be reflected in what we procure?

Wader2

17th Sep 2009, 10:52

the last 30 years - to recover the Falkands, the two Gulf Wars, and in Kosovo

And two of these were wars of choice. Indeed the first two could also have been wars of choice "oh dear, how sad" and "we'll appeal to the UN".

As Jabba said, Force Projection.

Does the great British public want force projection? - No.

Can we afford a multi-facetted projection force? - No.

Does Europe have the political will and rectitude to match the USA in Force Projection? - No.

So, WTF do we want to do and will it be worth the effort?

That we depend on maritime trade is true, but so does most of the world including Saudi Arabia and China. Do they police SLOC? Can we police SLOC?

How about some frigates and corvettes to patrol our own shores, beef up the border security? Maintain existing air defence; it is just adequate. Disband all offensive forces except those bound into true international forces.

And has been said above, start culling at the top. Our local councils are starting to amalgamate; about time we went to a purple force with one HQ. We could still wear multi-hued uniforms.

elderlypart-timer

17th Sep 2009, 10:57

Jabba TG12

"Who (apart from the obvious players) in the world, let alone Europe, may face a direct territorial challenge in the near future?"

Good question. The South Koreans and the Taiwanese feel a bit more worried about this than we might but then should we be interested in helping them out? Closer to home the Baltic states don't feel especially comfortable at the moment and we do have a legal obligation to come to their defence. On the other hand some would say the Russians are no fools and are not going to directly attack a NATO member.

elderlypart-timer

17th Sep 2009, 12:53

Wader2

17th Sep 2009, 13:52

Wader 2

Lord Halifax might have said that WW2 was a war of choice but you're right - we could have walked away from both Gulf Wars, Kosovo and the Falklands (that last decision would have stopped Mrs T from being re-elected in 1983)

Just points for debate really.

Not sure the great British public have ever been asked whether they want force projection. They certainly wanted it during the Falklands war

Why did they want it? Were they similarly enthused in Cyprus, Kenya, Aden, Malaya, Singapore etc or did they just go along with the existing WW2 winner, world-power thing?

Had the Government not had the resolve and the media pickep up on it you can imagine a quite different Indie outcome - waht have the Falklands ever done for us? kind of thing.

We can afford to spend more, perhaps not now. MoD continues to sit on valuable assets that have nothing to do with the defence of the realm

Should we/could we depend on others to protect our SLOC?

The UN?

By default we already allow others to, or fail to, protect our SLOC. In the 60s, off Indonesia, two carrier air groups were protecting SLOC. Now one destroyer or frigate can .............

The only global force (command) would be the UN. The only half-way functional international is of course NATO or any other US Command with friendly units attached.

jordanpolonijo

17th Sep 2009, 21:12

Ill be blunt.

29% approx of Budget is given to the social. So many non GB citizens on the take along with 2nd/3rd generation immigrants on the take. We should not be paying for peoples asylum. Period.

It will end up with facists gaining too much power the more this spirals out of control.

Gordon Brown is wet. His face is wet. His manifesto is wet. He is a "2Bob-wannabe" nice guy that everyone likes.

Man up and take both pride and control of your country.

Hang on your a jock.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

jordanpolonijo

17th Sep 2009, 21:14

Also get Jock the personal abuse out and someone who has a balanced tri-service opinion.

Its like having an English referee ref an England International.

e.g: we dont F-35B variants. The Navy dont need carriers.

Sir ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz:zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::z zz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:

Modern Elmo

18th Sep 2009, 03:21

[edit]Development of bunker-busting weapons
Penetration with a hardened penetrator

A secant ogive ( drawing )

Further thinking on the subject envisions a penetrator, dropped from service height of a bomber aircraft, using kinetic energy to penetrate the shielding, and subsequently deliver a nuclear explosive to the buried target.

The problems with such a penetrator is the tremendous heat applied to the penetrator unit when striking the shielding (surface) at hundreds of meters per second. This has partially been solved by using metals such as tungsten (with a much higher melting point than steel), and altering the shape of the projectile (such as an ogive).

Altering the shape of the projectile to incorporate an ogive shape has yielded substantial results. Rocket sled testing at Eglin Air Force Base has demonstrated penetrations of 100 to 150 feet (46 m) in concrete[citation needed] when traveling at 4,000 ft/s (1,200 m/s). The reason for this is liquefaction of the concrete in the target, which tends to flow over the projectile. Variation in the speed of the penetrator can either cause it to be vaporized on impact (in the case of traveling too fast), or to not penetrate far enough (in the case of traveling too slow). An approximation for the penetration depth is obtained with an impact depth formula derived by Sir Isaac Newton.

[edit]Combination penetrator-explosive munitions

Another school of thought on nuclear bunker busters is using a light penetrator to travel 15 to 30 meters through shielding, and detonate a nuclear charge there. Such an explosion would generate powerful shock waves, which would be transmitted very effectively through the solid material comprising the shielding (see "scabbing" above).
[edit]Criticism

The main criticisms of nuclear bunker busters regard nuclear fallout and nuclear proliferation. The purpose of an earth-penetrating nuclear "bunker buster" is to reduce the required yield needed to ensure the destruction of the target by coupling the explosion to the ground, yielding a shock wave similar to an earthquake. For example, the United States retired the B-53 warhead, with a yield of 9 megatons, because the B-61 Mod 11 could attack similar targets with much lower yield (400 kilotons)[citation needed], due to the latter's superior ground penetration. Thus the fallout of a B-61 Mod 11 would likely be less than that of a B-53. Supporters note that this is one of the reasons nuclear bunker busters should be developed. Critics claim that developing new nuclear weapons sends a proliferating message to non-nuclear powers, undermining non-proliferation efforts.

Critics also worry that the existence of lower-yield nuclear weapons for relatively limited tactical purposes will lower the threshold for their actual use, thus blurring the sharp line between conventional weapons intended for use and weapons of mass destruction intended only for hypothetical deterrence and increasing the risk of escalation to higher-yield nuclear weapons.[1]

Fallout from any nuclear detonation is increased with proximity to the ground. While a megaton-class yield will inevitably throw up many tons of (newly) radioactive debris, which falls back to the earth as fallout, critics contend that despite their relatively minuscule explosive yield, nuclear bunker busters create more fallout per kiloton yield. Also, because of the subsurface detonation, radioactive debris may contaminate the local groundwater.
The scientific group Union of Concerned Scientists points out that, at the Nevada Test Site, the depth required to contain fallout from an average-yield nuclear test was over 100 meters, depending upon the weapon's yield. They contend that it is improbable that penetrators could be made to burrow so deeply. With yields between 0.3 and 340 kilotons, they argue, it is unlikely the blast would be completely contained.
Another criticism is that bunkers can be built at greater depth to make them more difficult to reach. The target's vulnerability is then limited to openings like the ventilation system, which are susceptible to conventional explosives. Proponents of nuclear bunker busters respond that deeper bunkers entail higher costs, limiting the potential enemies who can withstand nuclear bunker busters.

Politically, as well, such nuclear bunker busters are unpopular. Most targets are near cities[citation needed], critics argue, and even minimal fallout will inflict unacceptable levels of collateral damage. Furthermore, they state, the testing of new nuclear weapons would be prohibited by the proposed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Although Congress refused to ratify the CTBT in 1999, the United States has adhered to the spirit of the treaty by maintaining a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992.[2]

Finally, the need to use nuclear weapons in this role is questioned by critics[citation needed]. They argue that conventional ground-penetration weapons are able to destroy enough buried or strengthened sites to lessen or even remove the need to use nuclear technology. Other conventional weapons such as thermobaric weapons have proven effective in defeating buried targets which have not been hardened.
[edit]Development of bunker-busting weapons

B61 nuclear bomb

As early as 1944, the Wallis Tallboy bomb and subsequent Grand Slam weapons were designed to penetrate deeply fortified structures through sheer explosive power. These were not designed to directly penetrate defences, though they could do this (for example the Valentin submarine pens had ferrous concrete roofs 7 metres (23 ft) thick which were penetrated by two Grand Slams on 27 March 1945), but rather to penetrate under the target and explode leaving a camouflet (cavern) which would undermine foundations of structures above, causing it to collapse, thus negating any possible hardening. The destruction of targets such as the V3 guns at Mimoyecques or with the first operational use of the Tallboy. One bored through a hillside and exploded in the Saumur rail tunnel about 18 m (60 ft) below, completely blocking it thus showing that these weapons could destroy any hardened or deeply excavated installation. Modern targeting techniques allied with multiple strikes could unquestionably perform a similar task.[3][4][5]

Development continued, with weapons such as the nuclear B61, and conventional thermobaric weapons and GBU-28. One of the more effective housings, the GBU-28 used its large mass (2,130 kg / 4,700 lb) and casing (constructed from barrels of surplus 203 mm howitzers) to penetrate 6 meters (20 ft) of concrete, and more than 30 meters (100 ft) of earth.[6] The B61 Mod 11, which first entered military service in January 1997, was specifically developed to allow for bunker penetration, and is speculated to have the ability to destroy hardened targets a few hundred feet beneath the earth.[7]

While penetrations of 20–100 feet (30 m) were sufficient for some shallow targets, both the Soviet Union and the United States were creating bunkers buried under huge volumes of soil or reinforced concrete in order to withstand the multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Bunker penetration weapons were initially designed out of this Cold War context.

Mountainous terrain in Afghanistan

The weapon was revisited in the post-Cold War during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and again during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During the campaign in Tora Bora in particular, the United States believed that "vast underground complexes," deeply buried, were protecting opposing forces. Such complexes were not found. While a nuclear penetrator (the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator", or "RNEP") was never built, the DOE was allotted budget to develop it, and tests were conducted by the Air Force Research Laboratory.

The Bush administration removed its request for funding[8] of the weapon in October 2005. Additionally, US Senator Pete Domenici announced funding for the nuclear bunker-buster has been dropped from the Department of Energy's fiscal 2006 budget at the department's request.[9]

While the project for the RNEP seems to be in fact canceled, Jane's Information Group speculates[10] work may continue under another name.

Nuclear bunker buster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_Nuclear_Earth_Penetrator)