Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Thread Starter
As Biggus says, the MOD should be wary of anything that causes valuable personnel to leave.
Here's another Telegraph article: Cutting Britain's defence budget to pay other bills is a false economy
A free people, George Washington said, must be constantly awake against the insidious wiles of foreign influence. At any moment, from any quarter, trouble may pounce to put the sovereignty of the nation under threat. Defending the realm demands eternal vigilance.
Yet in this particular kingdom we are nodding off, distracted by the agonies of a financial crisis and the positioning of leaders vying for power. A time of great uncertainty abroad is met by political indifference at home.
Climate change and resource shortages, to cyber-warfare and disorderly states, to Islamist terrorism and international criminal networks, the dangers are multiplying. And then there are the unknown unknowns, the things we don't know that we don't know that kept Donald Rumsfeld up at night. Thirty years from now, who is to say that Russia will not have reverted to its expansionist ways, or that a nuclear-armed Caliphate of Waziristan will not be parked where Pakistan used to be?
Which is what makes British foreign policy, and our capacity to implement it, such a vital part of what a government does. It remains essential to us that our diplomatic effort be played out in the international premier league.
Only the other day, I was talking to a former US Naval Aviator who said....
No money = No toys and it doesn’t matter how much anybody screams. And I’m sorry if this sounds arrogant but if you aren’t bringing something real to a coalition, then at the military level you aren’t worth listening to. That said, I really think that the British have a viewpoint that the Americans need to hear at times.
I think this underlines the value of CVF. This was in the context of naval aviation issues post Sea Jet.
On a naval theme, this Proceedings Story from the US Naval Institute asked the heads of various Navies what they see as the main challenges they face. There are responses from the heads of the Navies of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Croatia, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and finally, the UK.
Our own First Sea Lord comments: The most significant maritime security threat facing the United Kingdom is the complacency that flows from ignorance about the importance of the sea. Sea blindness is endemic in the UK and across the western world and leads to a lack of appreciation of the full extent of maritime threats to global security, which could be allowed to develop if unchecked. These threats range from the expansionist policies of emerging nation states to the criminal activities of pirates and people traffickers.
If anyone is still reading this, this video (from YouTube) about the Canadian naval part of the war on terror (sic) reflects the activities of all the Western Navies - including the RN.
Operation Apollo: part one
Here's another Telegraph article: Cutting Britain's defence budget to pay other bills is a false economy
A free people, George Washington said, must be constantly awake against the insidious wiles of foreign influence. At any moment, from any quarter, trouble may pounce to put the sovereignty of the nation under threat. Defending the realm demands eternal vigilance.
Yet in this particular kingdom we are nodding off, distracted by the agonies of a financial crisis and the positioning of leaders vying for power. A time of great uncertainty abroad is met by political indifference at home.
Climate change and resource shortages, to cyber-warfare and disorderly states, to Islamist terrorism and international criminal networks, the dangers are multiplying. And then there are the unknown unknowns, the things we don't know that we don't know that kept Donald Rumsfeld up at night. Thirty years from now, who is to say that Russia will not have reverted to its expansionist ways, or that a nuclear-armed Caliphate of Waziristan will not be parked where Pakistan used to be?
Which is what makes British foreign policy, and our capacity to implement it, such a vital part of what a government does. It remains essential to us that our diplomatic effort be played out in the international premier league.
Only the other day, I was talking to a former US Naval Aviator who said....
No money = No toys and it doesn’t matter how much anybody screams. And I’m sorry if this sounds arrogant but if you aren’t bringing something real to a coalition, then at the military level you aren’t worth listening to. That said, I really think that the British have a viewpoint that the Americans need to hear at times.
I think this underlines the value of CVF. This was in the context of naval aviation issues post Sea Jet.
On a naval theme, this Proceedings Story from the US Naval Institute asked the heads of various Navies what they see as the main challenges they face. There are responses from the heads of the Navies of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Croatia, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and finally, the UK.
Our own First Sea Lord comments: The most significant maritime security threat facing the United Kingdom is the complacency that flows from ignorance about the importance of the sea. Sea blindness is endemic in the UK and across the western world and leads to a lack of appreciation of the full extent of maritime threats to global security, which could be allowed to develop if unchecked. These threats range from the expansionist policies of emerging nation states to the criminal activities of pirates and people traffickers.
If anyone is still reading this, this video (from YouTube) about the Canadian naval part of the war on terror (sic) reflects the activities of all the Western Navies - including the RN.
Operation Apollo: part one
If anyone is still reading this,
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This 'one carrier' proposition is rubbish. We should either do the job properly, or get out of the business altogether. It's a shame the ships have already been named. I don't think there's been an 'HMS Token' in the fleet before.
On the other hand, perhaps we could apply the same logic to the Deterrent? We only need one sub, really. After all, we will always have enough Int and the political will to prepare it and to put it to sea when needed, wont we?
On the other hand, perhaps we could apply the same logic to the Deterrent? We only need one sub, really. After all, we will always have enough Int and the political will to prepare it and to put it to sea when needed, wont we?
Thread Starter
Here's a link to another article (well, actually a page with a PDF link) from Chatham House:
National Defence in the Age of Austerity
Preparations for the next UK defence review are under way; a struggle is imminent and the lines of battle are being drawn. There is a grave danger that in the new 'age of austerity' defence planning-and strategy generally-will be driven by tribal conflicts, either between supporters of one or other of the armed services or between contending viewpoints about the nature of conflict. And there will be others who will argue that the defence review should be driven simply by the need to reduce government expenditure, as quickly as possible.
These arguments not only reduce the defence debate to a struggle between various incompatible and uncompromising tribal beliefs-'war among the fetishes', perhaps-they also miss the point.
This article gauges the extent of the economic challenges which the UK defence establishment will confront over the coming decade. The authors consider how best to approach the problem of undiminished (and even expanding) commitments at a time of decreasing resources. They argue that defence planning should be driven by the notion of value (the ratio of function to cost), which in turn requires both a clear national political vision and a defence establishment which is output- rather than input-oriented. Finally, the authors assert that defence must transform itself to be able to achieve the outputs required in the most efficient and responsive manner.
National Defence in the Age of Austerity
Preparations for the next UK defence review are under way; a struggle is imminent and the lines of battle are being drawn. There is a grave danger that in the new 'age of austerity' defence planning-and strategy generally-will be driven by tribal conflicts, either between supporters of one or other of the armed services or between contending viewpoints about the nature of conflict. And there will be others who will argue that the defence review should be driven simply by the need to reduce government expenditure, as quickly as possible.
These arguments not only reduce the defence debate to a struggle between various incompatible and uncompromising tribal beliefs-'war among the fetishes', perhaps-they also miss the point.
This article gauges the extent of the economic challenges which the UK defence establishment will confront over the coming decade. The authors consider how best to approach the problem of undiminished (and even expanding) commitments at a time of decreasing resources. They argue that defence planning should be driven by the notion of value (the ratio of function to cost), which in turn requires both a clear national political vision and a defence establishment which is output- rather than input-oriented. Finally, the authors assert that defence must transform itself to be able to achieve the outputs required in the most efficient and responsive manner.
Thread Starter
Several pages ago we covered the topic of piracy. In fact it was mentioned a number of times - and indeed had at least one thread dedicated to it here and one on Jet Blast. The view taken by some was that anti piracy operations are politically motivated - and unlikely to be sucessful. However:
Piracy Decline A Fact - Washington Times
A year after Somali pirates grabbed headlines with a series of high-profile hijackings in East African waters, piracy appears to be waning. In the past three months, there has been just one successful hijacking in the Somali Basin, a swath of ocean stretching from the Gulf of Aden into the Indian Ocean that is criss-crossed by tens of thousands of commercial vessels each month. There were 17 hijackings In the comparable period last year.
"It's a fact," Royal Navy Commodore Steve Chick said of piracy's decline. Commodore Chick heads a force of five NATO warships, including the Donald Cook, a Virginia-based U.S. Navy destroyer that deployed to Africa in July for six months.
In an interview Sept. 24, Commodore Chick cited better ship self-protection, effective military patrols and improved security on land in Somalia as the major reasons driving down hijackings.
He said merchant crews are taking better self-protection measures, including sailing faster and stringing barbed wire on their ships' railings to thwart boarders. Many merchant ships also use fire hoses to blast pirates off their ladders during any attempted hijacking. The U.S. Coast Guard regularly publishes the latest methods for merchant ship self-defense.
Commodore Chick also said military vessels sent by many nations to battle piracy are doing a better job working together. After a year of buildup, about 40 warships from more than a dozen nations are patrolling the Somali Basin. Most of them belong to three large flotillas - one each from NATO, the European Union and the U.S.-led Combined Task Force 151.
There are also Maritime Patrol Aircraft involved, and of course ships' own helicopters. More on anti piracy operations from War Is Boring here.
Talking of ships' helicopters - HMS Iron Duke recently captured a large shipment of Cocaine in the Carribean. Here is a video of her Lynx shooting up the druggie boat with her .50 Cal. I understand she then sank the druggie vessel with a few 4.5 inch shells. Nice.
On the MOD and RN websites (and a few media ones)there is footage of various captured drug boats and pirate skiffs etc being engaged by gunfire - GPMG, Mingun, 20 and 30mm, .50 Cal and now 4.5 inch. This has got to be a deterrent. I remember seeing a programme on BBC2 anout the US investigation into the East Africa bombings, and one FBI (I think) investigator related how a would be suicide bomber was deterred by strong embassy security as (in his mind) an attack against this level of defence would simply be suicide, with little chance of a sucessful attack. The level of close range firepower aboard surface warships now, and RFAs, and the escorting by naval units of high value seaborne logistics, should be a deterrent to potential terrorists.
One of the reasons maritime terrorism hasn't been more of a problem is that Al Qaeda have not had a secure shoreline to use as a base. The drugs barons in Columbia have secret workshops and yards in areas they control that they have used to build drug boats, and even submersibles. The LTTE Sea Tigers in Sri Lanka used rebel areas to build various attack craft, and they were trying to build mini submarines for suicide attacks. Fortunately, Al Qaeda have not had coastal areas under their control.
That might not always be the case. The EU aid chief has warned on the risk of Somalia becoming the next Afghanistan.
2="We are in a very, very difficult situation. But we cannot leave Somalia to the extremists. There is an al Qaeda influence in Somalia ... which is growing, seeking a foothold and we have to stop them somewhere," European Union Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Karel De Gucht told Reuters after meeting with U.N. diplomats and officials.
"If we let this happen, then the next question is what is the next country. We have to be resilient and to stand firm. It is extremely difficult, risky, but we have no choice."
There is also insurgency in Yemen. A vary large percentage of world shipping passes between the two. There may be trouble ahead.....
Piracy Decline A Fact - Washington Times
A year after Somali pirates grabbed headlines with a series of high-profile hijackings in East African waters, piracy appears to be waning. In the past three months, there has been just one successful hijacking in the Somali Basin, a swath of ocean stretching from the Gulf of Aden into the Indian Ocean that is criss-crossed by tens of thousands of commercial vessels each month. There were 17 hijackings In the comparable period last year.
"It's a fact," Royal Navy Commodore Steve Chick said of piracy's decline. Commodore Chick heads a force of five NATO warships, including the Donald Cook, a Virginia-based U.S. Navy destroyer that deployed to Africa in July for six months.
In an interview Sept. 24, Commodore Chick cited better ship self-protection, effective military patrols and improved security on land in Somalia as the major reasons driving down hijackings.
He said merchant crews are taking better self-protection measures, including sailing faster and stringing barbed wire on their ships' railings to thwart boarders. Many merchant ships also use fire hoses to blast pirates off their ladders during any attempted hijacking. The U.S. Coast Guard regularly publishes the latest methods for merchant ship self-defense.
Commodore Chick also said military vessels sent by many nations to battle piracy are doing a better job working together. After a year of buildup, about 40 warships from more than a dozen nations are patrolling the Somali Basin. Most of them belong to three large flotillas - one each from NATO, the European Union and the U.S.-led Combined Task Force 151.
There are also Maritime Patrol Aircraft involved, and of course ships' own helicopters. More on anti piracy operations from War Is Boring here.
Talking of ships' helicopters - HMS Iron Duke recently captured a large shipment of Cocaine in the Carribean. Here is a video of her Lynx shooting up the druggie boat with her .50 Cal. I understand she then sank the druggie vessel with a few 4.5 inch shells. Nice.
On the MOD and RN websites (and a few media ones)there is footage of various captured drug boats and pirate skiffs etc being engaged by gunfire - GPMG, Mingun, 20 and 30mm, .50 Cal and now 4.5 inch. This has got to be a deterrent. I remember seeing a programme on BBC2 anout the US investigation into the East Africa bombings, and one FBI (I think) investigator related how a would be suicide bomber was deterred by strong embassy security as (in his mind) an attack against this level of defence would simply be suicide, with little chance of a sucessful attack. The level of close range firepower aboard surface warships now, and RFAs, and the escorting by naval units of high value seaborne logistics, should be a deterrent to potential terrorists.
One of the reasons maritime terrorism hasn't been more of a problem is that Al Qaeda have not had a secure shoreline to use as a base. The drugs barons in Columbia have secret workshops and yards in areas they control that they have used to build drug boats, and even submersibles. The LTTE Sea Tigers in Sri Lanka used rebel areas to build various attack craft, and they were trying to build mini submarines for suicide attacks. Fortunately, Al Qaeda have not had coastal areas under their control.
That might not always be the case. The EU aid chief has warned on the risk of Somalia becoming the next Afghanistan.
2="We are in a very, very difficult situation. But we cannot leave Somalia to the extremists. There is an al Qaeda influence in Somalia ... which is growing, seeking a foothold and we have to stop them somewhere," European Union Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Karel De Gucht told Reuters after meeting with U.N. diplomats and officials.
"If we let this happen, then the next question is what is the next country. We have to be resilient and to stand firm. It is extremely difficult, risky, but we have no choice."
There is also insurgency in Yemen. A vary large percentage of world shipping passes between the two. There may be trouble ahead.....
Thread Starter
At the start of a new decade, we appear to live in interesting times (which makes me think of the Chinese curse).
The UK economy has been ruined by short termism and obsession with simple statistical measures, as has much else. Has the target culture in the NHS, or the Police, or the education system, really produced better results? For those involved with defence, short termism is everywhere. I cannot resist mentioning how absurd I think it is that the new carriers are being delayed so save a few quid in the immediate future but it will drive the overall build cost up considerably. There are numerous other examples of this type of policy making.
We have had a decade of presentation and no substance, dancing while the city burns. Will this year, or this decade, be any better?
The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have led many in the media, and the public, and most worryingly politics, to conclude that future conflicts will be both land centric and against opponents without a credible navy or air force. Is this not a case of preparing the fight the last (ie current) war?
After Afghanistan, just about every other nation has a coastline. After Saddam era Iraq, other nations will not have had economics sanctions and arms blockade, and no fly zones for over ten years. We ignore that at our peril. Have a look at Iraq's Eastern neighbour. Over a thousand miles of coast (not including the Caspian), a large air force, and a navy that includes submarines of various sorts. The Revolutionary Guards also have naval and air forces. Large sums have been spent on sophisticated SAMs and modern fighter aircraft. Likewise North Korea is also a nation that is neither land locked nor has it been subjects of sanctions preventing it from obtaining arms.
The public seem to have concluded that there is no need for frigates, submarines, fighter aircraft, AWACS, to name but a few - ignoring the fact that all of these have been busy. I believe/fear that the next few years will show how dangerous these assumptions are.
Even without an enemy with advanced weapons, the assumption that everything will always be land centric may get us into trouble. There has been a lot written lately of insurgency in Somalia, a coastal state. Across the Gulf of Aden, Yemen also has an Islamist insurgency. Both of these would introduce new maritime aspects to the fight against terror. If they happened simultaneously it would cause real problems for shipping - including that carrying supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Also we forget certain potential terrorist threats at our peril. A terrorist flying an aircraft full of explosives is not a MiG, but personally I'd prefer a fighter to shoot him down, or (at sea) a ship with an appropriate missile system. What if terrorists acquired not only SAMs and anti armour weapons, but anti ship missile, as Hezbollah has already demonstrated. What about a dhow packed with explosives heading towards the Iraqi oil platforms or a ship full of NATO supplies, heading for a Pakistani port? The way to deal with this sort of attack is for an escorting warship to sink it with gunfire (or Sea Skua), or an on call strike aircraft to take it out.
In a few months time we will be having a general election. Does the thought of new Government excite me? Well, no, to be honest. I fear that a short sighted defence review will follow - analogous to Nott's 1981 defence review.
Public support for the Armed Forces is higher than it has been for years. Is public understanding also increasing? I don't think so. Does the public understand that the RN and RAF are fighting services in their own right, and need to be, and not simply support arms for the Army?
Also see this Telegraph article by Sir Malcom Rifkind: Britain must be prepared to defend its place in the world
The UK economy has been ruined by short termism and obsession with simple statistical measures, as has much else. Has the target culture in the NHS, or the Police, or the education system, really produced better results? For those involved with defence, short termism is everywhere. I cannot resist mentioning how absurd I think it is that the new carriers are being delayed so save a few quid in the immediate future but it will drive the overall build cost up considerably. There are numerous other examples of this type of policy making.
We have had a decade of presentation and no substance, dancing while the city burns. Will this year, or this decade, be any better?
The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have led many in the media, and the public, and most worryingly politics, to conclude that future conflicts will be both land centric and against opponents without a credible navy or air force. Is this not a case of preparing the fight the last (ie current) war?
After Afghanistan, just about every other nation has a coastline. After Saddam era Iraq, other nations will not have had economics sanctions and arms blockade, and no fly zones for over ten years. We ignore that at our peril. Have a look at Iraq's Eastern neighbour. Over a thousand miles of coast (not including the Caspian), a large air force, and a navy that includes submarines of various sorts. The Revolutionary Guards also have naval and air forces. Large sums have been spent on sophisticated SAMs and modern fighter aircraft. Likewise North Korea is also a nation that is neither land locked nor has it been subjects of sanctions preventing it from obtaining arms.
The public seem to have concluded that there is no need for frigates, submarines, fighter aircraft, AWACS, to name but a few - ignoring the fact that all of these have been busy. I believe/fear that the next few years will show how dangerous these assumptions are.
Even without an enemy with advanced weapons, the assumption that everything will always be land centric may get us into trouble. There has been a lot written lately of insurgency in Somalia, a coastal state. Across the Gulf of Aden, Yemen also has an Islamist insurgency. Both of these would introduce new maritime aspects to the fight against terror. If they happened simultaneously it would cause real problems for shipping - including that carrying supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Also we forget certain potential terrorist threats at our peril. A terrorist flying an aircraft full of explosives is not a MiG, but personally I'd prefer a fighter to shoot him down, or (at sea) a ship with an appropriate missile system. What if terrorists acquired not only SAMs and anti armour weapons, but anti ship missile, as Hezbollah has already demonstrated. What about a dhow packed with explosives heading towards the Iraqi oil platforms or a ship full of NATO supplies, heading for a Pakistani port? The way to deal with this sort of attack is for an escorting warship to sink it with gunfire (or Sea Skua), or an on call strike aircraft to take it out.
In a few months time we will be having a general election. Does the thought of new Government excite me? Well, no, to be honest. I fear that a short sighted defence review will follow - analogous to Nott's 1981 defence review.
Public support for the Armed Forces is higher than it has been for years. Is public understanding also increasing? I don't think so. Does the public understand that the RN and RAF are fighting services in their own right, and need to be, and not simply support arms for the Army?
Also see this Telegraph article by Sir Malcom Rifkind: Britain must be prepared to defend its place in the world
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 2nd Jan 2010 at 11:51.
Thread Starter
We have another general election coming up. A new Government?
I recently heard a senior RN Officer comment that the decisions being made will affect the destiny of the UK for decades to come. Not a time for short term cuts, I would suggest.
From Time magazine: Defense of the Realm: Britain's Armed Forces Crisis
This is sobering.
I recently heard a senior RN Officer comment that the decisions being made will affect the destiny of the UK for decades to come. Not a time for short term cuts, I would suggest.
From Time magazine: Defense of the Realm: Britain's Armed Forces Crisis
This is sobering.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's hope we get a government with the balls to scrap the RN's SSBN boondoggle fleet.
It is not as if £100Bn+ could not be used to better effect elsewhere in the UKG budget!!!
It is not as if £100Bn+ could not be used to better effect elsewhere in the UKG budget!!!
Thread Starter
More interesting/sobering stuff to consider: Defence Management Journal: Getting the Budget Balance Right
The official line is that this is not, as is often suggested, a matter of where the balance of investment should lie between the services. Rather this is about ensuring the UK achieves a balance, across all three services and with allies, between its ability to fight a traditional war of air, maritime and ground kinetic manoeuvre while being able to conduct a far more difficult one amongst, with and for the people of Afghanistan. Few would argue that the UK must find the vision and the resources needed to move away from being prepared to take on the USSR in central Europe and towards being prepared for new security challenges in an increasingly uncertain world. This should be the aim of the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in the next parliament, and this rebalancing could result in more ships, armoured vehicles and aircraft not less, even though they might not necessarily be those the MoD currently plans on. But in making cuts and realigning the order books before the SDR, the MoD could be accused of putting the cart before the horse. Britain needs to make some serious decisions about its place in the world, after which it must make hard choices about how it wants to project power overseas and withinwhich cooperative frameworks. There is a default position within Whitehall that Britons will not want to take themselves to the margin of world affairs, but is this true in 2010? Foreign secretaries and senior mandarins might prefer an activist foreign policy and a desire to be engaged in the world, but does that resonate with those who stand respectfully for the hearses moving slowly through Wootton Bassett? And if the UK continues to punch above its weight, how best should it project military power in the future?
The forthcoming SDR must assess how the UK should adjust its force structure so that it can properly sustain whatever operations it conducts in the field. Then Whitehall must work much harder to extract better value from its international alliances. The UK wants to be Washington's main military ally in the world, but the initial Chinook HC3 fiasco showed that MoD is not very savvy in deriving value for money from its close relationship with the mighty American military machine.
There are also questions about Britain and its European allies. If the French and British agree on a procurement issue, the rest of Europe tends to fall in line. The UK and France must work much harder to avoid duplication in defence procurement. When it comes to operational matters, does the UK need two new aircraft carriers alongside France's one? Do both need wholly separate, independently procured nuclear deterrents?
Ainsworth's latest refocused shopping list amounted to a mini-review in favour of the army, which expects to be fighting the Taliban for several more years, at the expense of the navy and the air force. The British Army is winning the latest battle for the budget but such eriodic rebalancing must not disguise the fact that the UK needs to pay for its defence more efficiently. Since the last SDR in 1998, the MoD has consistently failed to adhere to its planning assumptions. In addition, just as consistently, the MoD bust its budget on equipment, leaving a financial black hole that invariably had to be filled by piecemeal cuts or delays in programmes, which, just as invariably, incurred long-term costs.
The next SDR is unlikely to be completed until well into 2011, but there must be far more coherence to British defence strategy and discipline throughout the MoD budgetary process in the second decade of the 21st Century than there was in the first.
I like the comment that there is nothing more expensive than the Treasury saving money. As for a new Government, I wonder if having a system where one party is in power for three or four terms is such a good thing as it means an incoming Government has no experience.
Going back to my earlier comment that assymetric may involve opponents with access to advanced weaponry - perhaps we should now add Scud type missiles to things some Governments will supply to their proxies - see here.
The official line is that this is not, as is often suggested, a matter of where the balance of investment should lie between the services. Rather this is about ensuring the UK achieves a balance, across all three services and with allies, between its ability to fight a traditional war of air, maritime and ground kinetic manoeuvre while being able to conduct a far more difficult one amongst, with and for the people of Afghanistan. Few would argue that the UK must find the vision and the resources needed to move away from being prepared to take on the USSR in central Europe and towards being prepared for new security challenges in an increasingly uncertain world. This should be the aim of the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in the next parliament, and this rebalancing could result in more ships, armoured vehicles and aircraft not less, even though they might not necessarily be those the MoD currently plans on. But in making cuts and realigning the order books before the SDR, the MoD could be accused of putting the cart before the horse. Britain needs to make some serious decisions about its place in the world, after which it must make hard choices about how it wants to project power overseas and withinwhich cooperative frameworks. There is a default position within Whitehall that Britons will not want to take themselves to the margin of world affairs, but is this true in 2010? Foreign secretaries and senior mandarins might prefer an activist foreign policy and a desire to be engaged in the world, but does that resonate with those who stand respectfully for the hearses moving slowly through Wootton Bassett? And if the UK continues to punch above its weight, how best should it project military power in the future?
The forthcoming SDR must assess how the UK should adjust its force structure so that it can properly sustain whatever operations it conducts in the field. Then Whitehall must work much harder to extract better value from its international alliances. The UK wants to be Washington's main military ally in the world, but the initial Chinook HC3 fiasco showed that MoD is not very savvy in deriving value for money from its close relationship with the mighty American military machine.
There are also questions about Britain and its European allies. If the French and British agree on a procurement issue, the rest of Europe tends to fall in line. The UK and France must work much harder to avoid duplication in defence procurement. When it comes to operational matters, does the UK need two new aircraft carriers alongside France's one? Do both need wholly separate, independently procured nuclear deterrents?
Ainsworth's latest refocused shopping list amounted to a mini-review in favour of the army, which expects to be fighting the Taliban for several more years, at the expense of the navy and the air force. The British Army is winning the latest battle for the budget but such eriodic rebalancing must not disguise the fact that the UK needs to pay for its defence more efficiently. Since the last SDR in 1998, the MoD has consistently failed to adhere to its planning assumptions. In addition, just as consistently, the MoD bust its budget on equipment, leaving a financial black hole that invariably had to be filled by piecemeal cuts or delays in programmes, which, just as invariably, incurred long-term costs.
The next SDR is unlikely to be completed until well into 2011, but there must be far more coherence to British defence strategy and discipline throughout the MoD budgetary process in the second decade of the 21st Century than there was in the first.
I like the comment that there is nothing more expensive than the Treasury saving money. As for a new Government, I wonder if having a system where one party is in power for three or four terms is such a good thing as it means an incoming Government has no experience.
Going back to my earlier comment that assymetric may involve opponents with access to advanced weaponry - perhaps we should now add Scud type missiles to things some Governments will supply to their proxies - see here.
Thread Starter
Watching the debate between the leaders of the three main political parties last night I noticed that Gordon Brown did talk about future terrorist threats from Yemen and Somalia. Nick Clegg proposed axing/limiting the future nuclear deterrent to help pay for today's conflicts, whilst another Lib Dem was proposing a nuclear free world, at least until some dictator gets hold of them and there is nothing to deter him. Not sure what David Cameron said.
In the Telegraph there is an comment type article by Con Coughlin:
Britain needs the Navy to provide firepower – not a ferry service
But even if it appears that the Navy has seen better days, it still has a crucial role to play – a factor that will need to be given serious consideration when the next government begins the long-overdue defence review. Just because most of our military effort today is focused on fighting a war in a landlocked country does not mean that the wars of the future will be fought in similar circumstances. Prior to the September 11 attacks, one of our most successful overseas interventions was in Sierra Leone. The aircraft carrier Illustrious made a crucial contribution: with its Harrier jets providing vital air cover for the Paras fighting on the ground. The carrier's presence also allowed helicopters to fly troops and supplies to and from the combat zone.
Sierra Leone could provide the model for future operations, where the three Services pool whatever resources are needed. Certainly, the need for greater flexibility is likely to increase after the general election, as none of the three main parties appears to have an appetite for committing to the type of open-ended intervention we have seen in Afghanistan. After more than a decade of fighting Blair's wars, the last thing Labour wants is another overseas adventure. The Tories seem keen to revert to Douglas Hurd's policy of keeping out of any conflict that does not directly impinge upon Britain's national interests, while the pacifism of the Liberal Democrats makes them constitutionally unsuited for the prosecution of modern warfare.
That means that the next government will be more inclined to use the Sierra Leone model than the Afghan one if it became necessary to launch military action against Islamist terrorists in Yemen or Somalia. And to guarantee success, we will need all the naval firepower we can muster.
Some of the comments by readers are, well, interesting. Hey, why let small things like facts spoil your arguments?
In the Telegraph there is an comment type article by Con Coughlin:
Britain needs the Navy to provide firepower – not a ferry service
But even if it appears that the Navy has seen better days, it still has a crucial role to play – a factor that will need to be given serious consideration when the next government begins the long-overdue defence review. Just because most of our military effort today is focused on fighting a war in a landlocked country does not mean that the wars of the future will be fought in similar circumstances. Prior to the September 11 attacks, one of our most successful overseas interventions was in Sierra Leone. The aircraft carrier Illustrious made a crucial contribution: with its Harrier jets providing vital air cover for the Paras fighting on the ground. The carrier's presence also allowed helicopters to fly troops and supplies to and from the combat zone.
Sierra Leone could provide the model for future operations, where the three Services pool whatever resources are needed. Certainly, the need for greater flexibility is likely to increase after the general election, as none of the three main parties appears to have an appetite for committing to the type of open-ended intervention we have seen in Afghanistan. After more than a decade of fighting Blair's wars, the last thing Labour wants is another overseas adventure. The Tories seem keen to revert to Douglas Hurd's policy of keeping out of any conflict that does not directly impinge upon Britain's national interests, while the pacifism of the Liberal Democrats makes them constitutionally unsuited for the prosecution of modern warfare.
That means that the next government will be more inclined to use the Sierra Leone model than the Afghan one if it became necessary to launch military action against Islamist terrorists in Yemen or Somalia. And to guarantee success, we will need all the naval firepower we can muster.
Some of the comments by readers are, well, interesting. Hey, why let small things like facts spoil your arguments?
Good bye.....if that's the way you feel. Much like the senior officers in "Nero building" who never fought for flying maintainers to be paid on a continuous basis.
Guess what who's now got no Flying maintainers......Turkeys Christmas i think.
Guess what who's now got no Flying maintainers......Turkeys Christmas i think.
Given there really are no jobs for pilots at the moment (unless you are rated and experienced on a wide-body, and want to live in China), it seems illogical to pay retention pay to military pilots.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oct last year FM pay on a continuous basis was re-introduced. One would imangine that the "leadership" 3 years after making their original "savings" decision finally understod the loss of "experience and goodwill" in a "availability context"
Thread Starter
RUSI have filmed a number of interviews with Rear Admiral Chris Parry, General Sir Mike Jackson, and Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge. These are very relevent to the debate that needs to happen before the post election defence review - an review that will be influenced by public perception and the media.
What will Britain's role be in future conflict?
Can Britain continue to stay Afghanistan?
Is there a public appetite for defence?
What should our spending priorities be on defence?
Are the Armed Forces used as a political football?
What is your advice for an incoming government?
Interesting.
Two additional things - both related to the election.
1. HMS Roebuck, being paid off as part of the cuts in December has been decommisioned without fanfare. Presumably the reason for the lack of publicity has been the pre election restrictions. However, a MOD spokesman had something to say:
Announcing the decommissioning of HMS Roebuck, and the Mine Warfare Vessel HMS Walney, an MoD spokesman in Plymouth said: 'Because of the need to concentrate finite resources on our current operations, we believe it is sensible to seek economies in capabilities that might be less directly involved in these operations over the next few years.
'For this reason we have chosen to bring forward the out of service dates.'
The spokesman added: 'Our mine warfare and survey capabilities will be reduced, but this is so we can increase investment in those capabilities that are presently needed for current operations.'
And the reason we keep a quarter of our Mine Contermeasures Vessels East of Suez is?
2. Nick Clegg has pledged to cut down on the numbers of Admirals.
We have to ask why there are around 800 civil servants doing communications for the MoD and why there are two admirals for every ship in the navy. We don't need more than one per ship.....
Well, Mr Clegg, your comments provoked some dabate here.
It looks as though the leader of the Lib Dems remains sadly ill-informed. According to the March 2010 Bridge Card, the Naval Service still has nearly 80 surface warships of all sizes plus 14 nuclear submarines and 16 fleet auxiliaries. Then there are the three RM Commandos, 17 Naval Air Squadrons, Naval Strike Wing and all their supporting assets and infrastructure.
A recent letter in Telegraph also disputed Clegg's assertions:
Clegg’s Navy ignorance
SIR – The buzz is that Nick Clegg did well in the last television debate. However, on defence, he made a glib claim that there are two admirals for every ship in the Royal Navy, hinting strongly at there being an opportunity for savings. He is way off track with his figures – there are not 150 or so admirals as he suggests.
There are 36 flag and general officers in the Navy, of whom 30 are admirals and six are Royal Marines major-generals. Of this number, 20 admirals and two generals are in dedicated naval or marine posts, and only two hold the four-star rank of a full admiral. Ten admirals and generals are in tri-service defence posts, most of which are open to Army generals and air marshals by competition, and another four are in Nato posts.
Of the eight vice-admirals on the active list, half are in Nato or tri-service appointments, such as Surgeon Vice-Admiral Philip Raffaelli who succeeded an Army officer as Surgeon-General in December. These appointments say a lot about the high calibre of these officers.
Nick Clegg should take more care and more interest in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.
Lt-Cdr Lester May RN (retd)
London NW1
Perhaps you should try researching the facts next time, eh, Mr Clegg?
What will Britain's role be in future conflict?
Can Britain continue to stay Afghanistan?
Is there a public appetite for defence?
What should our spending priorities be on defence?
Are the Armed Forces used as a political football?
What is your advice for an incoming government?
Interesting.
Two additional things - both related to the election.
1. HMS Roebuck, being paid off as part of the cuts in December has been decommisioned without fanfare. Presumably the reason for the lack of publicity has been the pre election restrictions. However, a MOD spokesman had something to say:
Announcing the decommissioning of HMS Roebuck, and the Mine Warfare Vessel HMS Walney, an MoD spokesman in Plymouth said: 'Because of the need to concentrate finite resources on our current operations, we believe it is sensible to seek economies in capabilities that might be less directly involved in these operations over the next few years.
'For this reason we have chosen to bring forward the out of service dates.'
The spokesman added: 'Our mine warfare and survey capabilities will be reduced, but this is so we can increase investment in those capabilities that are presently needed for current operations.'
And the reason we keep a quarter of our Mine Contermeasures Vessels East of Suez is?
2. Nick Clegg has pledged to cut down on the numbers of Admirals.
We have to ask why there are around 800 civil servants doing communications for the MoD and why there are two admirals for every ship in the navy. We don't need more than one per ship.....
Well, Mr Clegg, your comments provoked some dabate here.
It looks as though the leader of the Lib Dems remains sadly ill-informed. According to the March 2010 Bridge Card, the Naval Service still has nearly 80 surface warships of all sizes plus 14 nuclear submarines and 16 fleet auxiliaries. Then there are the three RM Commandos, 17 Naval Air Squadrons, Naval Strike Wing and all their supporting assets and infrastructure.
A recent letter in Telegraph also disputed Clegg's assertions:
Clegg’s Navy ignorance
SIR – The buzz is that Nick Clegg did well in the last television debate. However, on defence, he made a glib claim that there are two admirals for every ship in the Royal Navy, hinting strongly at there being an opportunity for savings. He is way off track with his figures – there are not 150 or so admirals as he suggests.
There are 36 flag and general officers in the Navy, of whom 30 are admirals and six are Royal Marines major-generals. Of this number, 20 admirals and two generals are in dedicated naval or marine posts, and only two hold the four-star rank of a full admiral. Ten admirals and generals are in tri-service defence posts, most of which are open to Army generals and air marshals by competition, and another four are in Nato posts.
Of the eight vice-admirals on the active list, half are in Nato or tri-service appointments, such as Surgeon Vice-Admiral Philip Raffaelli who succeeded an Army officer as Surgeon-General in December. These appointments say a lot about the high calibre of these officers.
Nick Clegg should take more care and more interest in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.
Lt-Cdr Lester May RN (retd)
London NW1
Perhaps you should try researching the facts next time, eh, Mr Clegg?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, WEBF, what's your solution?
What is the UK's place and role in the world?
What capabilities do we need and which ones are optional?
How much will it cost?
How are you going to pay for it?
Which political party is going to adopt your ideas as policy before Thursday's election?
When you've established the force structure and sorted out the budget, pls post it on here, and copy it to the SDR Team at Main Building; they will doubtless be grateful.
Until then, this is just bleating and irrelevant drivel. Sorry to sound harsh, but to be the effective advocate for the RN you aspire to be, you need to be able to answer these questions.
S41
What is the UK's place and role in the world?
What capabilities do we need and which ones are optional?
How much will it cost?
How are you going to pay for it?
Which political party is going to adopt your ideas as policy before Thursday's election?
When you've established the force structure and sorted out the budget, pls post it on here, and copy it to the SDR Team at Main Building; they will doubtless be grateful.
Until then, this is just bleating and irrelevant drivel. Sorry to sound harsh, but to be the effective advocate for the RN you aspire to be, you need to be able to answer these questions.
S41
Thread Starter
S41
Don't ask me, I'm not a senior officer or politician. I just posted the story about Nick Clegg as it shows that the politicians can be ignorant of basic facts - yes all the parties are guilty of this.
Don't ask me, I'm not a senior officer or politician. I just posted the story about Nick Clegg as it shows that the politicians can be ignorant of basic facts - yes all the parties are guilty of this.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Fair enough, my tone was borne out of frustration with the whole lack of debate. Now that the votes have been cast, it's probably time for people to come forward and look at the books. Based on the public data, the news is likely to be pretty grim:
- MoD is not a department which any of the parties have elected to ring-fence the budget for beyond 2010-11
- This means, according the Institute for Fiscal Studies, (the keeper of the flame for public spending, and arguably the conscience of the Treasury) that MoD is one of the Departments where the axe will fall (see The Institute For Fiscal Studies - Filling the hole: how do the three main UK parties plan to repair the public finances?)
- Of the unprotected Departments, MoD is largest, with the expectation that this would be in the realm of 12 - 20%; something like £7bn pa on a baseline of £36bn (ish, before UORs and Afghanistan)
- It's very unlikely that the other "unprotected" Departments (e.g. transport, culture, media and sport) would be able to take this cut for the MoD, as their budgets are (a) smaller and (b) under pressure too - and most importantly, (c) more popular than the MoD
- In any event, MoD was £36bn overcommitted if the budget was flat-cash (ie, same number of pounds each year) over the next decade according to the NAO - so cuts were coming anyway.
- Thus, if you add these cuts (£7bn pa) to the existing £36bn hole, then roughly £100bn needs to be cut from the MoD's forward plan over the next decade.
Bottom line: if this is accurate, then the current force structure is completely unaffordable and will need to be recast at a much lower level of ambition, as the cash is simply not available.
Sorry for the length, hope this helps.
S41
Fair enough, my tone was borne out of frustration with the whole lack of debate. Now that the votes have been cast, it's probably time for people to come forward and look at the books. Based on the public data, the news is likely to be pretty grim:
- MoD is not a department which any of the parties have elected to ring-fence the budget for beyond 2010-11
- This means, according the Institute for Fiscal Studies, (the keeper of the flame for public spending, and arguably the conscience of the Treasury) that MoD is one of the Departments where the axe will fall (see The Institute For Fiscal Studies - Filling the hole: how do the three main UK parties plan to repair the public finances?)
- Of the unprotected Departments, MoD is largest, with the expectation that this would be in the realm of 12 - 20%; something like £7bn pa on a baseline of £36bn (ish, before UORs and Afghanistan)
- It's very unlikely that the other "unprotected" Departments (e.g. transport, culture, media and sport) would be able to take this cut for the MoD, as their budgets are (a) smaller and (b) under pressure too - and most importantly, (c) more popular than the MoD
- In any event, MoD was £36bn overcommitted if the budget was flat-cash (ie, same number of pounds each year) over the next decade according to the NAO - so cuts were coming anyway.
- Thus, if you add these cuts (£7bn pa) to the existing £36bn hole, then roughly £100bn needs to be cut from the MoD's forward plan over the next decade.
Bottom line: if this is accurate, then the current force structure is completely unaffordable and will need to be recast at a much lower level of ambition, as the cash is simply not available.
Sorry for the length, hope this helps.
S41
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Labour hid ‘scorched earth’ debts worth billions
It looks like the new government are now beginning to discover just how bad a situation they have inherited.
Labour hid ‘scorched earth’ debts worth billions - TimesOnline 16 May 10
Actually, it was signed off quite a while ago IIRC, but I can understand their bewilderment.
Standby for a very interesting Defence Review!
Labour hid ‘scorched earth’ debts worth billions - TimesOnline 16 May 10
The “black holes” that ministers have already unearthed include:
- A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has “astonished and baffled” ministers.
- A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has “astonished and baffled” ministers.
Gerald Howarth, the new Tory minister for defence procurement, disclosed that the financial pressures on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were even graver than he had been expecting. “The appetite for new programmes exceeded the capacity of the MoD’s stomach, particularly in the run-up to the election,” he said. “In the past few months there was a rush of new orders. What we are going to have to do is ensure the equipment programme matches the military need.”
Defence sources say the military has been using the urgent operational requirement (UOR) to borrow money from the Treasury to fund equipment for Afghanistan that the MoD could not afford to buy. “They’ve been using the UOR system like a credit card,” one source said, “and they’ve been maxing out on the card to the point where they’re around £700m over the limit. It’s all got to be paid back.”
Defence sources say the military has been using the urgent operational requirement (UOR) to borrow money from the Treasury to fund equipment for Afghanistan that the MoD could not afford to buy. “They’ve been using the UOR system like a credit card,” one source said, “and they’ve been maxing out on the card to the point where they’re around £700m over the limit. It’s all got to be paid back.”
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LFFC noted
Not sure I can - the NAO's had time to produce and clear a report on FSTA since the contract was signed IIRC in 2008. However, their conclusion that the Department couldn't show it was value for money in the procurement phase is clear - and the news that the previous KC-45A cost (for a rather more capable and flexible tanker transport than we're getting under the PFI) was $179m fly away a copy - makes the MoD PFI look even more egregious.
But yes, the spray paint is now on the walls and the letters are 10ft high!
T
The “black holes” that ministers have already unearthed include:
- A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has “astonished and baffled” ministers.
Actually, it was signed off quite a while ago IIRC, but I can understand their bewilderment.
- A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has “astonished and baffled” ministers.
Actually, it was signed off quite a while ago IIRC, but I can understand their bewilderment.
But yes, the spray paint is now on the walls and the letters are 10ft high!
T
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel,
It is amazing that the figure you calculate needs cutting from the MOD budget is exactly what many people say a Trident replacement system will cost.
Cheers
BHR
It is amazing that the figure you calculate needs cutting from the MOD budget is exactly what many people say a Trident replacement system will cost.
Cheers
BHR