Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so were do the savings come from to bring the MoD back in budget?
I know the answers that everyone else should take the pain not just with in govt budgets or within the defence budget so the arguments of cut Army, Navy to fund the Air Force and the other services will be making the same calls, Cut the budgets of health, welfare etc and put the savings into defence well the public wouldn't tolerate that now would they.
At the end of the day some cuts will need to happen across a 3 services and all government departments.
I know the answers that everyone else should take the pain not just with in govt budgets or within the defence budget so the arguments of cut Army, Navy to fund the Air Force and the other services will be making the same calls, Cut the budgets of health, welfare etc and put the savings into defence well the public wouldn't tolerate that now would they.
At the end of the day some cuts will need to happen across a 3 services and all government departments.
Thread Starter
Fox: defence review is under way
"We desperately need a defence review which is why it will begin immediately, it will begin today (12 May)," he said. "We now need to look at the threats that this country faces and to look at the threats of the future and try to shape our armed forces and our budgets to protect Britain not only today but from what might come out of the blue at us."
The Defence Secretary said that as well as conducting the review, his priority was to ensure troops in Afghanistan were well equipped.
"We're all concerned about the political excitement here but we have to remember that in Afghanistan our armed forces are involved in a very brutal and bloody war and we have to ensure that they have everything they need to do the job that we have asked them to do in our name," he said. "So the number one priority has to be to look after our armed forces," he said.
"There will be a number of challenges because the time I spent working as a doctor with the armed forces taught me that it's not just about our frontline forces themselves, it's also about the families. And we have to pay more attention to service families and their needs as we also have to do with service veterans. I think that in this country we need to treat our veterans in the way that the best of other countries treat their veterans."
You might also find this piece on Open Source Warfare (so called) to be interesting. Remember too the threat from aircraft in terrorist hands, potentially against our aircraft. A light aircraft flown into a helicopter full of troops is going to be a big win for the bad guys.
"We desperately need a defence review which is why it will begin immediately, it will begin today (12 May)," he said. "We now need to look at the threats that this country faces and to look at the threats of the future and try to shape our armed forces and our budgets to protect Britain not only today but from what might come out of the blue at us."
The Defence Secretary said that as well as conducting the review, his priority was to ensure troops in Afghanistan were well equipped.
"We're all concerned about the political excitement here but we have to remember that in Afghanistan our armed forces are involved in a very brutal and bloody war and we have to ensure that they have everything they need to do the job that we have asked them to do in our name," he said. "So the number one priority has to be to look after our armed forces," he said.
"There will be a number of challenges because the time I spent working as a doctor with the armed forces taught me that it's not just about our frontline forces themselves, it's also about the families. And we have to pay more attention to service families and their needs as we also have to do with service veterans. I think that in this country we need to treat our veterans in the way that the best of other countries treat their veterans."
You might also find this piece on Open Source Warfare (so called) to be interesting. Remember too the threat from aircraft in terrorist hands, potentially against our aircraft. A light aircraft flown into a helicopter full of troops is going to be a big win for the bad guys.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHR,
Well, perhaps - but I'm not one of them, as the £100bn Trident figure is a 30 year through life cost and the £70 - £100bn that I'm predicting in cuts (as the sensible upper bound) would need to be delivered in the next decade.
It's going to be an interesting few months.
S41
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.
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.
It's going to be an interesting few months.
S41
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel,
I think that serious consideration is going to have to be made into cancelling a Trident replacement AND cancelling the CVFs.
These are two big budget items that are beyond the needs of a country of our size (actual as opposed to perceived!!).
Looking across at the RAF I think if at all possible there needs to be a major scaling back on the purchases of Typhoons (but I am aware that there are cancellation costs there too). Also the buy of JSFs needs scaling back but the cancellation of the CVFs will help there (no carriers therefore no planes needed for them!).
The Army is a tougher one. I do not see many "big ticket" purchases that could or should be cut.
I think that serious consideration is going to have to be made into cancelling a Trident replacement AND cancelling the CVFs.
These are two big budget items that are beyond the needs of a country of our size (actual as opposed to perceived!!).
Looking across at the RAF I think if at all possible there needs to be a major scaling back on the purchases of Typhoons (but I am aware that there are cancellation costs there too). Also the buy of JSFs needs scaling back but the cancellation of the CVFs will help there (no carriers therefore no planes needed for them!).
The Army is a tougher one. I do not see many "big ticket" purchases that could or should be cut.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that serious consideration is going to have to be made into cancelling a Trident replacement AND cancelling the CVFs.
These are two big budget items that are beyond the needs of a country of our size (actual as opposed to perceived!!).
These are two big budget items that are beyond the needs of a country of our size (actual as opposed to perceived!!).
That's Strategic Deterrence, and with it our permanent seat on the UNSC, Maritime Manoeuvre, Theatre Entry, Maritime Power Projection, Shaping Operations, Sea Basing among others all cut for a nation that relies on the sea for 80% of its trade.
Also the buy of JSFs needs scaling back but the cancellation of the CVFs will help there (no carriers therefore no planes needed for them!)
Alternatively, the Air Force could shave 10% off it's T&S budget and enable the other services actually increase our spending.
Okay, that was a little flippant, but I have seen numerous posts bitching about having to travel 2nd class on trains, economy class on aircraft as opposed to 1st class. If it means we get to keep more of our toys I'm all for it.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar
Quite right - focus on the outputs. The question is, would you take the same view of binning boarding school allowance amongst other things if that's the cost of keeping more of the toys?
BHR,
I think that they'll look at Trident and CVF, but think under Liam Fox, Trident is almost certainly safe; a mistake in my view as I've consistently said. Though Radar thinks
he is quite wrong. There is no link between Trident and the Permanent Seat on the Council - if we want to give up our Permanent, Veto-wielding seat on the Council, then we would need to vote in favour of a resolution amending the UN Charter in this way. We won't, so the P5 seat is safe.
As for Radar's observation that binning CVF would end
I fear that he is missing the point. Binning CVF would indeed mean the end of UK ONLY, Symmetrically Opposed Theatre Entry capability, but please explain to me where we're going to need this alone other than the Falkland Islands? And if the threat is the loss of the Falklands, then defend them and don't lose them in the first place!
If the SDR were to conclude that we were going to operate in alliances with the US, NATO and EU allies (as well as Australia, NZ, Japan, possibly India) more frequently (which is after all what the Green Paper said earlier this year), then the need for CVF is pretty well gone, because the USN will provide that capability. Can anyone come up with a credible set of circumstances where the go/no-go is a British CVF?
For my money, as painful as this is for the RN in general and the surface warfaires in particular, the RN would be much more useful to such a coalition if it could provide specific niche capabilities. Remind me:
- How many Dave-Bs CVF is going to carry at surge rates?
- Where is the AWACS?
- Where's the organic ISTAR?
- How many missions / 24 hours sustained for a week?
It's not that I'm anti-CVF per se - I'm not; it's a lovely idea and I'd like to see 2 x QE class with 8 x T45 and 6 x FSC (Type 26?) each operating 40 odd Dave-C with E-2D AWACS, pinging Merlins etc etc. But it is not a serious financial proposition, and so better to spend the precious resources on something more useful - like Type 26 to get the RN escort fleet up to something relevant from the current appalling level. Are you really going to use CVF to chase Somali pirates? By itself?
S41
...but I have seen numerous posts bitching about having to travel 2nd class on trains, economy class on aircraft as opposed to 1st class. If it means we get to keep more of our toys I'm all for it.
BHR,
I think that they'll look at Trident and CVF, but think under Liam Fox, Trident is almost certainly safe; a mistake in my view as I've consistently said. Though Radar thinks
That's Strategic Deterrence, and with it our permanent seat on the UNSC
As for Radar's observation that binning CVF would end
Maritime Manoeuvre, Theatre Entry, Maritime Power Projection, Shaping Operations, Sea Basing among others all cut for a nation that relies on the sea for 80% of its trade.
If the SDR were to conclude that we were going to operate in alliances with the US, NATO and EU allies (as well as Australia, NZ, Japan, possibly India) more frequently (which is after all what the Green Paper said earlier this year), then the need for CVF is pretty well gone, because the USN will provide that capability. Can anyone come up with a credible set of circumstances where the go/no-go is a British CVF?
For my money, as painful as this is for the RN in general and the surface warfaires in particular, the RN would be much more useful to such a coalition if it could provide specific niche capabilities. Remind me:
- How many Dave-Bs CVF is going to carry at surge rates?
- Where is the AWACS?
- Where's the organic ISTAR?
- How many missions / 24 hours sustained for a week?
It's not that I'm anti-CVF per se - I'm not; it's a lovely idea and I'd like to see 2 x QE class with 8 x T45 and 6 x FSC (Type 26?) each operating 40 odd Dave-C with E-2D AWACS, pinging Merlins etc etc. But it is not a serious financial proposition, and so better to spend the precious resources on something more useful - like Type 26 to get the RN escort fleet up to something relevant from the current appalling level. Are you really going to use CVF to chase Somali pirates? By itself?
S41
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Awaiting Redundancies
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cuts are coming whether we like it or not. It seems most of us agree that everything we already have is not enough. So how about some reorganisation for savings.
Starters for 10 ..
Nuclear deterrent back to the Air Force (...and yes I do appreciate the drawbacks that means - huge savings though .. and kudos!).
UK QRA reduced to southern Q only (go on bite!)
Beggars can't be choosers.
It's going to hurt whatever we have to do ...
Starters for 10 ..
Nuclear deterrent back to the Air Force (...and yes I do appreciate the drawbacks that means - huge savings though .. and kudos!).
UK QRA reduced to southern Q only (go on bite!)
Beggars can't be choosers.
It's going to hurt whatever we have to do ...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel,
Based on your argument against CVF etc you could hand over the RAF role in toto to the US and France ie it is a fatuous argument. If as you claim the UK does not need its own expeditionary capability then you can remove 50% of the Army, 70% of the RAF and reduce the RN to a "protection of the sea lanes" role. And I still don't understand what Typhoon does for the UK - apart from publicity intercepts of non-threatening Russian aircraft.
In your world Squirrel, we must question the need for a separate RAF.
Based on your argument against CVF etc you could hand over the RAF role in toto to the US and France ie it is a fatuous argument. If as you claim the UK does not need its own expeditionary capability then you can remove 50% of the Army, 70% of the RAF and reduce the RN to a "protection of the sea lanes" role. And I still don't understand what Typhoon does for the UK - apart from publicity intercepts of non-threatening Russian aircraft.
In your world Squirrel, we must question the need for a separate RAF.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United States of Bradford
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Bismark - "I still don't understand what Typhoon does for the UK"
and you are here making comments with what justification??
I think you need to get that bullet hole in your foot sorted out.
and you are here making comments with what justification??
I think you need to get that bullet hole in your foot sorted out.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark,
In a word, no.
In more than one word, you're extrapolating and missing the point when it comes to paying for.
I repeat again, I would be delighted to see a pair of CVFs with 40+ Dave-C with E-2Ds, C-2s, and Merlin Mk 2s, with 4 T45s supported by a screen of T23s, a pair of Astutes in direct support, and a bevy of new RFA MARS auxiliaries.
It'd be a great "ooh look we can sail in straight lines" PhotEx which navies worldwide seem disproportionately pleased with.... 
(But the view would be great from the port beam pie-eating station on a MRA4....! 
)
However, the cost of this sort of force is immense, and in the current climate no political party in Parliament is advocating the c £60bn p.a. defence budget to fund it whilst funding all of the other capabilities.
My fear for the RN - and yes, I am Light Blue - is that the RN will get the CVFs, and in the process distort the entire RN budget and with it, force structure out beyond 2025 when the money could be better spent on more FSC-C1s/T26s which are going to be future backbone of the Fleet.
Am I clear?
S41
PS, and as for your Typhoon misunderstanding, I think dolphinops has just about covered it.....
Based on your argument against CVF etc you could hand over the RAF role in toto to the US and France ie it is a fatuous argument. If as you claim the UK does not need its own expeditionary capability then you can remove 50% of the Army, 70% of the RAF and reduce the RN to a "protection of the sea lanes" role.
In more than one word, you're extrapolating and missing the point when it comes to paying for.
I repeat again, I would be delighted to see a pair of CVFs with 40+ Dave-C with E-2Ds, C-2s, and Merlin Mk 2s, with 4 T45s supported by a screen of T23s, a pair of Astutes in direct support, and a bevy of new RFA MARS auxiliaries.
It'd be a great "ooh look we can sail in straight lines" PhotEx which navies worldwide seem disproportionately pleased with.... (But the view would be great from the port beam pie-eating station on a MRA4....! )However, the cost of this sort of force is immense, and in the current climate no political party in Parliament is advocating the c £60bn p.a. defence budget to fund it whilst funding all of the other capabilities.
My fear for the RN - and yes, I am Light Blue - is that the RN will get the CVFs, and in the process distort the entire RN budget and with it, force structure out beyond 2025 when the money could be better spent on more FSC-C1s/T26s which are going to be future backbone of the Fleet.
Am I clear?
S41
PS, and as for your Typhoon misunderstanding, I think dolphinops has just about covered it.....
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE CVF
Gentlemen, Pontificate all you want but CVF, MRA4, Typhoon, Wildcat, are all coming, the contracts have been signed, work is in progress and that is that. So rather than arguing the why's and what not why dont we take a look at the equiment inventory (Present and Future) and see where some savings can be made. here is a couple I can think of...
CVF - A big vessel with a large fight deck and a lot of space below. In 2005 the project to provide the Navy with a Joint Casualty Treatment Ship was abandoned through cost. The requirement has been partly taken up by RFA Argus who will soldier on for another 10 years. Surely with a little modification and ingenuity the CVF could be modified to fulfill this requirement. Using portable container units and fitting them out with medical facilities that can be placed in the hangers couldn't be that dificult a Modification.
The Nuclear deterent - Giving it back to the Airforce - It has it merits, Nuc tipped Cruise missiles launched from Nimrods or Submarines?
Gentlemen, Pontificate all you want but CVF, MRA4, Typhoon, Wildcat, are all coming, the contracts have been signed, work is in progress and that is that. So rather than arguing the why's and what not why dont we take a look at the equiment inventory (Present and Future) and see where some savings can be made. here is a couple I can think of...
CVF - A big vessel with a large fight deck and a lot of space below. In 2005 the project to provide the Navy with a Joint Casualty Treatment Ship was abandoned through cost. The requirement has been partly taken up by RFA Argus who will soldier on for another 10 years. Surely with a little modification and ingenuity the CVF could be modified to fulfill this requirement. Using portable container units and fitting them out with medical facilities that can be placed in the hangers couldn't be that dificult a Modification.
The Nuclear deterent - Giving it back to the Airforce - It has it merits, Nuc tipped Cruise missiles launched from Nimrods or Submarines?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My word,
What a lot of inter service bickering - very territorial and single Service focused indeed. None of the points actually satisfy the requirement, in that we in the military do not know what role our political masters wish us to play in the world?
Once we actually know what is required of us, then we can slice up the defence funding pie. If the politicians do not ever want us to conduct theatre entry, or gain control of any element of battle space (however small in size), or to hold/seize terrain, or conduct global power projection (including NEOs/Disaster Relief), then it becomes very simple. If the politicians sign up to all future military operations being as part of a Coalition, with no requirement to command or own battlespace, then the equation is further simplified.
Focus on Homeland Security and protecting UK, and develop capabilities that our Coalition partners, leaders and battle space owners actually require. Lets ask the US what they require and how we can add value to their future missions and what do they need from us limeys.
If this is really what the politicians want from defence, and they really want to make £35 bn defence savings, then lets go for contract severance (which will pay off long term through the life of the capability) and cancel CVF, Typhoon, reduce the head count in the Army and focus our resources on what our Coalition partners actually need (medical?engineering?logistical?).
But if this is the case, do not suddenly expect UK defence to suddenly appear from a fire like a phoenix when there is a public out cry for military intervention/support. Just as the politicians reduce the defence budget and task requirements, they must also re-align the public's expectations from its military. History has shown us that it takes a significant amount of time to regenerate a full military capability, so do not expect a 6 month lead in time for any future wars/military requirement as it will take many years to get anywhere near a true military force that can actually do anything (theatre entry and then control its own battlespace).
Tax payer choice - as long as they know that they cannot have it all, lets start finding out what is essential, highly desirable and nice to have and then deliver the tax payer (and politicians) what they ask for.
What a lot of inter service bickering - very territorial and single Service focused indeed. None of the points actually satisfy the requirement, in that we in the military do not know what role our political masters wish us to play in the world?
Once we actually know what is required of us, then we can slice up the defence funding pie. If the politicians do not ever want us to conduct theatre entry, or gain control of any element of battle space (however small in size), or to hold/seize terrain, or conduct global power projection (including NEOs/Disaster Relief), then it becomes very simple. If the politicians sign up to all future military operations being as part of a Coalition, with no requirement to command or own battlespace, then the equation is further simplified.
Focus on Homeland Security and protecting UK, and develop capabilities that our Coalition partners, leaders and battle space owners actually require. Lets ask the US what they require and how we can add value to their future missions and what do they need from us limeys.
If this is really what the politicians want from defence, and they really want to make £35 bn defence savings, then lets go for contract severance (which will pay off long term through the life of the capability) and cancel CVF, Typhoon, reduce the head count in the Army and focus our resources on what our Coalition partners actually need (medical?engineering?logistical?).
But if this is the case, do not suddenly expect UK defence to suddenly appear from a fire like a phoenix when there is a public out cry for military intervention/support. Just as the politicians reduce the defence budget and task requirements, they must also re-align the public's expectations from its military. History has shown us that it takes a significant amount of time to regenerate a full military capability, so do not expect a 6 month lead in time for any future wars/military requirement as it will take many years to get anywhere near a true military force that can actually do anything (theatre entry and then control its own battlespace).
Tax payer choice - as long as they know that they cannot have it all, lets start finding out what is essential, highly desirable and nice to have and then deliver the tax payer (and politicians) what they ask for.
althenick
"The Nuclear deterent - Giving it back to the Airforce - It has it merits, Nuc tipped Cruise missiles launched from Nimrods or Submarines?"
Hmmm, & how much do you think its going to cost to develop a completely new weapon & small N warhead?
"The Nuclear deterent - Giving it back to the Airforce - It has it merits, Nuc tipped Cruise missiles launched from Nimrods or Submarines?"
Hmmm, & how much do you think its going to cost to develop a completely new weapon & small N warhead?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy it will be a lot less than designing a new weapon and submarine to replace the existing system. Also the infradtructure footprint would be reduced ie Coulport would reduce in size etc.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: coming to a town near you!
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs - I strongly recommend reading this book. It will make you angry and you may not agree with all the conclutions but the facts are there.
Althenick
I am going to have to disagree. The Uk is curently committed to designing a new warhead to sit on top of a Trident missile body. The missile body costs have already been absorbed by the US & UK. Developing a new Cruise Missile and a warhead, and a targetting system would be very costly.
Designing a new Submarine will not be cheap, I'll grant you, but a lot of the work will be common to the Astute and to the civil nuclear programme so, again, is money that will already have to be spent.
Coulport already exists and has been paid for. Magazines and maintenance facilities for a new Cruise missile would have to be built from scratch, to meet a new nuclear weapon safety case. Cheap....I don't think so.
Sorry, but IF the UK is to stay in the nuclear club (and its a big IF) then developing our own cruise system & attendent infrastructure will also be very expensive. Lets not delude ourselves.
I am going to have to disagree. The Uk is curently committed to designing a new warhead to sit on top of a Trident missile body. The missile body costs have already been absorbed by the US & UK. Developing a new Cruise Missile and a warhead, and a targetting system would be very costly.
Designing a new Submarine will not be cheap, I'll grant you, but a lot of the work will be common to the Astute and to the civil nuclear programme so, again, is money that will already have to be spent.
Coulport already exists and has been paid for. Magazines and maintenance facilities for a new Cruise missile would have to be built from scratch, to meet a new nuclear weapon safety case. Cheap....I don't think so.
Sorry, but IF the UK is to stay in the nuclear club (and its a big IF) then developing our own cruise system & attendent infrastructure will also be very expensive. Lets not delude ourselves.
Thread Starter
Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs - I strongly recommend reading this book. It will make you angry and you may not agree with all the conclutions but the facts are there.
Hmm. One of the reasons I started this thread many moons ago was because of the fact that when defence is discussed in the media, most of what we hear/read is less than reliable. Anything written by that author should be treated with a huge pinch of salt....
Would getting rid of Trident/Sucessor save loads of cash? Well, perhaps not in the same way that some think. See this from the Guardian:
Savings from scrapping Trident would be negligible
Hmm. One of the reasons I started this thread many moons ago was because of the fact that when defence is discussed in the media, most of what we hear/read is less than reliable. Anything written by that author should be treated with a huge pinch of salt....
Would getting rid of Trident/Sucessor save loads of cash? Well, perhaps not in the same way that some think. See this from the Guardian:
Savings from scrapping Trident would be negligible
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 22nd May 2010 at 20:04.
