Defence is at a crossroads - The Times
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne
Not to mention that capabilities such as those we are discussing, although they can be instantly cut with the flourish of a pen, cannot be instantly recovered simply by throwing money at the problem.
It takes a generation to recover a lost capability. So, even if you can absolutely guarantee 100% we will have no need for aircraft carriers or MPAs or Air Interceptors for the next 30-40 years, then we might justbe able to save some money for about 5 years, because then we have to start regenerating again.
Can anyone else predict that far into the future, or is it just me that lacks prescience?
Not to mention that capabilities such as those we are discussing, although they can be instantly cut with the flourish of a pen, cannot be instantly recovered simply by throwing money at the problem.
It takes a generation to recover a lost capability. So, even if you can absolutely guarantee 100% we will have no need for aircraft carriers or MPAs or Air Interceptors for the next 30-40 years, then we might justbe able to save some money for about 5 years, because then we have to start regenerating again.
Can anyone else predict that far into the future, or is it just me that lacks prescience?
Proone
Desperate for the points made. It is easy to throw things away but the devils own job to get them back.
No politician will look further than the next election so a quick win is at the top of their list.
No politician will look further than the next election so a quick win is at the top of their list.
cannot be instantly recovered simply by throwing money at the problem.
So, even if you can absolutely guarantee 100% we will have no need for aircraft carriers or MPAs or Air Interceptors for the next 30-40 years
- we always seem able purloin one near the action. We also haven't had any real need for a maritime patrol and air interceptor capability since the break-up of the USSR.
I also struggle to imagine any threats which would require us to have any of these assets at our disposal. Terrorism is perhaps the biggest threat we face, apart from a few rogue states who fortunately are thousands of miles distant (apart from Iceland and we could 'ave 'em any day). Carriers, Typhoon, MPAs and MBTs for that matter are little use against the former.
Edited to add: The biggest threat to western civilisation? Western civilisation. The threat posed by terrorism, rogue states (including Russia) are really down in the weeds in comparison.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU,
No, I am not suggesting that the armed forces should only exist if they are being used, that would be palpable nonsense!
What I am suggesting is that cutting back the number of Air Defence squadrons to the number of Lightning squadrons that were apparently deemed to be OK for the majority of the Cold War, and its peak period, is OK. Do we need aircraft carriers any more? Not sure if we do as we have only ever needed them once in 50 odd years after all.
The capabilities are not being cut by politicians, they are being offered up as cuts by the senior uniformed chappies in the 3 services. If THEY think we can reduce accordingly then who am I to argue?
The simple truth is that we are never going to have to fight another Battle of Britain or Battle of the Atlantic, or defend against a mass armoured thrust into Europe, so the size and scope of the armed forces can and indeed should change to face the new reality.
Every other western nation is doing the same. The only nations with armed forces that are not being drastically reduced are India and China, massive countries with huge populations who are many MANY miles away and present us with absolutely no threat what so ever.
No, I am not suggesting that the armed forces should only exist if they are being used, that would be palpable nonsense!
What I am suggesting is that cutting back the number of Air Defence squadrons to the number of Lightning squadrons that were apparently deemed to be OK for the majority of the Cold War, and its peak period, is OK. Do we need aircraft carriers any more? Not sure if we do as we have only ever needed them once in 50 odd years after all.
The capabilities are not being cut by politicians, they are being offered up as cuts by the senior uniformed chappies in the 3 services. If THEY think we can reduce accordingly then who am I to argue?
The simple truth is that we are never going to have to fight another Battle of Britain or Battle of the Atlantic, or defend against a mass armoured thrust into Europe, so the size and scope of the armed forces can and indeed should change to face the new reality.
Every other western nation is doing the same. The only nations with armed forces that are not being drastically reduced are India and China, massive countries with huge populations who are many MANY miles away and present us with absolutely no threat what so ever.
Having "the number of Air Defence squadrons to the number of Lightning squadrons that were apparently deemed to be OK for the majority of the Cold War, and its peak period," would be an increase over what we have, and over what is planned, old chap.
5, 11, 19, 23, 29, 56, 74, 92, 111. Nine squadrons.
Don't tell me: You'd exclude 19 and 92 because they were in Germany from 1965, and you'd exclude 56 (Cyprus 67-75) and 74 (Tengah 67-71). That still leaves five squadrons, plus 43 with F-4s as the smallest UK-based Cold War AD force (before that the Lightnings were augmented by Javelins and Hunters and the like).
So we should have six Typhoon AD squadrons? Excellent, one more than is planned.
And as we expect Typhoon to do a bit more than AD, and to be deployable in the AD and Air-to-ground roles, perhaps we should replace the three Jag squadrons as well.
Time to get the cheque book out.
5, 11, 19, 23, 29, 56, 74, 92, 111. Nine squadrons.
Don't tell me: You'd exclude 19 and 92 because they were in Germany from 1965, and you'd exclude 56 (Cyprus 67-75) and 74 (Tengah 67-71). That still leaves five squadrons, plus 43 with F-4s as the smallest UK-based Cold War AD force (before that the Lightnings were augmented by Javelins and Hunters and the like).
So we should have six Typhoon AD squadrons? Excellent, one more than is planned.
And as we expect Typhoon to do a bit more than AD, and to be deployable in the AD and Air-to-ground roles, perhaps we should replace the three Jag squadrons as well.
Time to get the cheque book out.
Though it hurts me to say it....well said Jacko. Along with the same theme of correcting incorrect conceptions, this thread is very quickly descending into the same chaos many of the "incident" threads on Rumours and News become, with armchair pundits spouting their view of the world. Unfortunately, as on R&M, they are out of touch and just downright wrong.
Many of the comments on here have not just stopped at slating individual items of equipment but suggesting the removal of whole capabilities. Anyone who has served in any form of joint environment in the last 20 years could site plenty of examples of when these capabilities have been required. Note that the Falklands was over 20 years ago but remains more relevant today than it ever was, with the discovery of large oil and mineral reserves both around those Islands and also in Antarctica, which is in itself disputed. The so called British Antarctic Territory is also claimed by several other nations however, the UK is one of the few nations on earth that has a deep water port and airfield along with the air, naval and land forces to protect those interests. It was no co-incidence that the UK extended the economic zones around it's "territories" in 2009. Defence of the UK does not just mean England, Scotland, Wales and NI. To state that Maritime patrol has not been used shows equal ignorance and I do not mean to be rude there. there are many capabilities that to outsiders appear to be useless, but just because their successes cannot be trumpeted, does not lessen their value.
There are indeed tough times ahead, that is accepted. I would dearly like at least one party to state that after the election it would be the social security budget they would look at closely above all others (apart from Scotland probably ....joke alright!) because they would get my vote.
On a final note and I know that Jacko would argue against it but I hope that after my earlier support for his comments on his beloved Typhoon, even he could acknowledge at least two significant events that Naval forces are involved in at the moment. The first is anti-piracy and the second is the relief effort in Haiti, where naval forces (unfortunately not the UK's or French) are showing their utility in areas other than warfighting.
Good night and don't get trapped in tomorrow's snow!
Many of the comments on here have not just stopped at slating individual items of equipment but suggesting the removal of whole capabilities. Anyone who has served in any form of joint environment in the last 20 years could site plenty of examples of when these capabilities have been required. Note that the Falklands was over 20 years ago but remains more relevant today than it ever was, with the discovery of large oil and mineral reserves both around those Islands and also in Antarctica, which is in itself disputed. The so called British Antarctic Territory is also claimed by several other nations however, the UK is one of the few nations on earth that has a deep water port and airfield along with the air, naval and land forces to protect those interests. It was no co-incidence that the UK extended the economic zones around it's "territories" in 2009. Defence of the UK does not just mean England, Scotland, Wales and NI. To state that Maritime patrol has not been used shows equal ignorance and I do not mean to be rude there. there are many capabilities that to outsiders appear to be useless, but just because their successes cannot be trumpeted, does not lessen their value.
There are indeed tough times ahead, that is accepted. I would dearly like at least one party to state that after the election it would be the social security budget they would look at closely above all others (apart from Scotland probably ....joke alright!) because they would get my vote.
On a final note and I know that Jacko would argue against it but I hope that after my earlier support for his comments on his beloved Typhoon, even he could acknowledge at least two significant events that Naval forces are involved in at the moment. The first is anti-piracy and the second is the relief effort in Haiti, where naval forces (unfortunately not the UK's or French) are showing their utility in areas other than warfighting.
Good night and don't get trapped in tomorrow's snow!
Though I would continue to maintain that carriers are a seldom-needed, 'nice-to-have-not-must-have' capability that is unaffordable in these times, I am a big fan of the Royal Navy.
I would therefore strongly support investment in the kind of specialised vessels best suited for anti-piracy, fishery protection, drugs interdiction, etc. and am nervous about the continuing loss of frigate/destroyer numbers.
The latter reduction has been less precipitous and less calamitous than the reduction in fast jet squadron numbers (where I see a need for some restoration of force levels), and is, in my view, a less significant loss, but I would not want to see any further reduction.
I would therefore strongly support investment in the kind of specialised vessels best suited for anti-piracy, fishery protection, drugs interdiction, etc. and am nervous about the continuing loss of frigate/destroyer numbers.
The latter reduction has been less precipitous and less calamitous than the reduction in fast jet squadron numbers (where I see a need for some restoration of force levels), and is, in my view, a less significant loss, but I would not want to see any further reduction.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without wanting to get into another argument about the needs of one branch of the armed forces over another, I would humbly suggest that use of the word "unaffordable" is somewhat innacurate - any nation that can afford to spend £119bn healthcare, £105bn on welfare, £84bn on education and £83bn on miscellaneous "other spending" each year, not to mention a bank-bailout payment of £850bn can probably afford the handful of billions required to procure and support the required (desired?) Air, Land and Maritime equipment.
Unaffordable? I would contest that.
Undesirable, unpopular, un-vote-winning? Probably a little nearer the truth.
Unaffordable? I would contest that.
Undesirable, unpopular, un-vote-winning? Probably a little nearer the truth.
In the context of a £35 Bn Defence Budget, even without the £35 Bn overspend over the next ten years, and even without the inevitable cuts (5%-17%), and in a force structure where we're tumbling down past 12 fast jet squadrons, carriers and JSF are unaffordable and represent an unwelcome distortion of force structure.
While you and other right wingers might see an easy solution in cutting back on aid to 'da.mned foreigners' (most of them darkies, for goodness' sake), and on all of those welfare programmes - health, education and the like - the things that you see no problem in relying on private provision for, and while 'lefties' like me would see an increase in direct taxation and a removal of child benefit for the rich, as being a solution to constrained budgets, NEITHER is going to happen.
The defence bucket is not going to get significantly bigger, and may well get much smaller.
While you and other right wingers might see an easy solution in cutting back on aid to 'da.mned foreigners' (most of them darkies, for goodness' sake), and on all of those welfare programmes - health, education and the like - the things that you see no problem in relying on private provision for, and while 'lefties' like me would see an increase in direct taxation and a removal of child benefit for the rich, as being a solution to constrained budgets, NEITHER is going to happen.
The defence bucket is not going to get significantly bigger, and may well get much smaller.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you and other right wingers might see an easy solution in cutting back on aid to 'damned foreigners' (most of them darkies, for goodness' sake)
My point was that there is money out there. Present economic climate accepted, how the government chooses to spend its money is a matter of prioritisation more than overall affordability.
Last edited by Radar Command T/O; 20th Jan 2010 at 09:36. Reason: grammatical clarification.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
No, I am not suggesting that the armed forces should only exist if they are being used, that would be palpable nonsense!
Clearly, I misunderstood you the first time round. You may have to write things like;
Originally Posted by pr00ne
If you think that neither political party is going to be deploying armed forces for the foreseeable future then cuts are the right thing to do, especially as we need to reduce public expenditure pretty rapidly.
You can't just exist for the sake of existing you know.
You can't just exist for the sake of existing you know.
Radar, old chap,
I haven't called you a fascist, I've lumped you in with 'right wingers' - partly for comedic effect as I've also lumped myself (pro-defence, pro-nuke, pro-grammar school) as a 'lefty'.
Nor have I called you a racist.
I merely point out that many right wingers abhorr the idea of spending on overseas aid, and sent up what is an underlying thought, in many cases.
It was a cheap shot, as UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES I would myself support taking a selective axe to overseas aid spending.
The underlying point though is that however affordable a £70 Bn defence budget ought to be (and we probably both agree on that), we are not going to see appropriate tax rises to enable it, and nor are we going to see the money stripped from the bloated budget of the NHS, with GP pay being halved so that they're paid more like teachers than bankers.
However desirable that might be.
Defence is going to have to live within its means, and to make tough choices. In those circumstances, it is simply not sensible to spend on carriers and JSF.
I haven't called you a fascist, I've lumped you in with 'right wingers' - partly for comedic effect as I've also lumped myself (pro-defence, pro-nuke, pro-grammar school) as a 'lefty'.
Nor have I called you a racist.
I merely point out that many right wingers abhorr the idea of spending on overseas aid, and sent up what is an underlying thought, in many cases.
It was a cheap shot, as UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES I would myself support taking a selective axe to overseas aid spending.
The underlying point though is that however affordable a £70 Bn defence budget ought to be (and we probably both agree on that), we are not going to see appropriate tax rises to enable it, and nor are we going to see the money stripped from the bloated budget of the NHS, with GP pay being halved so that they're paid more like teachers than bankers.
However desirable that might be.
Defence is going to have to live within its means, and to make tough choices. In those circumstances, it is simply not sensible to spend on carriers and JSF.
No requirement for defence cuts....?
Read point two in the following link....
BBC News - The Go Figure election guide, part 1
The current government has pledged to halve the current annual deficit in the next four years. If, and it might be a big if, the information at point 2 in the link is correct, they don't have to actually cut expenditure to achieve this - so no cuts in defence are required
Of course, there are several possible holes in this arguement. Is the information in the link correct, and is halving the ANNUAL deficit in 4 years actually going far enough......???
BBC News - The Go Figure election guide, part 1
The current government has pledged to halve the current annual deficit in the next four years. If, and it might be a big if, the information at point 2 in the link is correct, they don't have to actually cut expenditure to achieve this - so no cuts in defence are required
Of course, there are several possible holes in this arguement. Is the information in the link correct, and is halving the ANNUAL deficit in 4 years actually going far enough......???
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hang on - they are going to halve the annual deficit in four years......
so they are saying don't worry about the money we have already put against your name but instead of 4000 per head per year we will only borrow another 2000.... so we would each be up to another 14000 in debt ON TOP of what we already owe.
What the F*** is going on in the treasury.....?
Who let these chinless wonders have the keys to the piggy bank and the company stamp that signs the loan agreements?
Most worryingly is who is holding the loan ticket?
so they are saying don't worry about the money we have already put against your name but instead of 4000 per head per year we will only borrow another 2000.... so we would each be up to another 14000 in debt ON TOP of what we already owe.
What the F*** is going on in the treasury.....?
Who let these chinless wonders have the keys to the piggy bank and the company stamp that signs the loan agreements?
Most worryingly is who is holding the loan ticket?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
Glad we cleared that up, at least.
Agree with you on the overseas aid thing - we shouldn't stop it all, particularly in view of recent events in Haiti, but I think a little "streamlining" is in order right now.
Also agree that GPs pay is way too high. However, I believe salaries should be appropriate to the level of qualification required for the job and the level of risk and responsibility taken in that role. With that in mind, I would expect a GP to earn more than a teacher. (Mrs Radar is a teacher, before anyone accuses me of demeaning teachers)
But we digress....
I don't think we can afford to get rid of our carriers just because they are not required for the present conflict. We can't see what lies ahead - in 1918, who knew we would be at war again in 20 years? Who knew in 1945 that we'd be fighting in Korea in only 6 years, or for the Suez 5 years after that? In 1980 we had no idea that our decision to lose our big carrier capability would bite us in the arse so quickly. It's been mentioned that if we ever needed carriers in a hurry, we can get them quickly from the Americans. That's assuming that they would have any to spare, and in any case, even if we got the platform, we wouldn't have the experienced ship's companies or aircrews to man and fight them. It takes 3-4 years to grow a FJ pilot, 2 to grow a RN Observer, 20 to grow a Carrier Captain.
Carriers mitigate the need for HNS all the time, they can get a lot closer to the enemy while remaining mobile so that they can sail out of the fogbank in order to launch and they make a much larger visible statement parked 20 miles of someone's coast than saying you've put some jets in a neighbouring country.
However, I also believe we are going to do the big carrier thing, we should do it all the way, not peacemeal; thus I am far from convinced that JSF-B is what we should be putting on them.
Glad we cleared that up, at least.
Agree with you on the overseas aid thing - we shouldn't stop it all, particularly in view of recent events in Haiti, but I think a little "streamlining" is in order right now.
Also agree that GPs pay is way too high. However, I believe salaries should be appropriate to the level of qualification required for the job and the level of risk and responsibility taken in that role. With that in mind, I would expect a GP to earn more than a teacher. (Mrs Radar is a teacher, before anyone accuses me of demeaning teachers)
But we digress....
I don't think we can afford to get rid of our carriers just because they are not required for the present conflict. We can't see what lies ahead - in 1918, who knew we would be at war again in 20 years? Who knew in 1945 that we'd be fighting in Korea in only 6 years, or for the Suez 5 years after that? In 1980 we had no idea that our decision to lose our big carrier capability would bite us in the arse so quickly. It's been mentioned that if we ever needed carriers in a hurry, we can get them quickly from the Americans. That's assuming that they would have any to spare, and in any case, even if we got the platform, we wouldn't have the experienced ship's companies or aircrews to man and fight them. It takes 3-4 years to grow a FJ pilot, 2 to grow a RN Observer, 20 to grow a Carrier Captain.
Carriers mitigate the need for HNS all the time, they can get a lot closer to the enemy while remaining mobile so that they can sail out of the fogbank in order to launch and they make a much larger visible statement parked 20 miles of someone's coast than saying you've put some jets in a neighbouring country.
However, I also believe we are going to do the big carrier thing, we should do it all the way, not peacemeal; thus I am far from convinced that JSF-B is what we should be putting on them.
I don't think we can afford to get rid of our carriers just because they are not required for the present conflict.
The reason the UK carrier option is so impotent is for a number of reasons. 1. They are too small.
2. The Flight decks are too small which means that the aircraft cannot carry the fuel/ordnance combination to make a difference over such a great distance.
3. Only GR7/9s can operate from CVS and they have been withdrawn, whilst the USN use FA18s.
So fast forward to 2016-18 and HMS QE is on the scene, with JCA/Rafale/Marinated Typhoon/F18s.(delete as required). The deck is large enough to allow the aircraft to carry the ordnance and the ship is large enough to carry the stores, spares, food, water and ammunition to support around the clock flying. Fast forward a few more years and MASC is no longer on a 1950s airframe but on a VH22 which can be launched from the same platform as can the UAVs providing ISTAR. The ship also carries CH53s and CH47s both of which can fit on the lifts and be stowed and serviced in the climate controlled hangar without folding and the whole ship is run with the same amount of manpower used on a current CVS (USN carrier requires many, many more!) Fast forward to the next calamity to befall a country with floods or earthquake and the same QE can be on the scene providing helicopter support, food, water, medical supplies and facilities.
Carriers ARE relevant in the Stan, just not the UKs CVS which , lets face it...are crap!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that I sound like a broken record but, i will say it again. Carriers ARE relevant to the present conflict. 30% of CAS effort in the Stan is conducted by the USN operating off carriers.
The reason the UK carrier option is so impotent is for a number of reasons. 1. They are too small.
2. The Flight decks are too small which means that the aircraft cannot carry the fuel/ordnance combination to make a difference over such a great distance.
3. Only GR7/9s can operate from CVS and they have been withdrawn, whilst the USN use FA18s.
The reason the UK carrier option is so impotent is for a number of reasons. 1. They are too small.
2. The Flight decks are too small which means that the aircraft cannot carry the fuel/ordnance combination to make a difference over such a great distance.
3. Only GR7/9s can operate from CVS and they have been withdrawn, whilst the USN use FA18s.
Fully agree with everything you said above - the US carriers are proving their worth, and I am convinced that if we had CVF right now they would be out their contributing in much the same way the CVNs are.
It is also very easy to dismiss our CVSs as as
crap
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Have a Military Force
Good evening all,
I have been following many of the arguments as to whether we should have carriers or tanks or planes, or nuclear weapons or what ever. Every one would appear to be picking their favourite toy and arguing for that. There are many, many threads and they all end up the same way.
Should we not be going back a step further and asking, as we all undoubtedly were at Sandhurst, Cranwell and at Dartmouth a number of questions (some of which I have seen asked). No groaning in the back there. These questions might include?
1/ How do you define a home land? Where is your homeland? Does it include colonies? Does it include In-dependencies? What about Commonwealth countries? How far out to sea does the homeland extend? Do people who have the same passports as us, but who are living and working abroad deserve to be defended?
2/ How do we defend the homeland? Military, politically, diplomatically, social engineering, corporates
3/ Do we defend the Homeland at all, or do we just let any invader come? Maybe we then use guerilla tactics
4/ Are we here to project power?
5/ Are we the worlds police men?
6/ Do we wish to expand our power base and take over more territories? If so, how? Doesn't necessarily require military power.
These are but a few questions that need answering, before any decision can be made as to what assets we require, and for what tasks they are required for.
I do realise that I am raising some very basic concepts from our youth, but I really don't see any point in these arguments about whether a submarine can fly faster than an Apache.
Hval
I have been following many of the arguments as to whether we should have carriers or tanks or planes, or nuclear weapons or what ever. Every one would appear to be picking their favourite toy and arguing for that. There are many, many threads and they all end up the same way.
Should we not be going back a step further and asking, as we all undoubtedly were at Sandhurst, Cranwell and at Dartmouth a number of questions (some of which I have seen asked). No groaning in the back there. These questions might include?
1/ How do you define a home land? Where is your homeland? Does it include colonies? Does it include In-dependencies? What about Commonwealth countries? How far out to sea does the homeland extend? Do people who have the same passports as us, but who are living and working abroad deserve to be defended?
2/ How do we defend the homeland? Military, politically, diplomatically, social engineering, corporates
3/ Do we defend the Homeland at all, or do we just let any invader come? Maybe we then use guerilla tactics
4/ Are we here to project power?
5/ Are we the worlds police men?
6/ Do we wish to expand our power base and take over more territories? If so, how? Doesn't necessarily require military power.
These are but a few questions that need answering, before any decision can be made as to what assets we require, and for what tasks they are required for.
I do realise that I am raising some very basic concepts from our youth, but I really don't see any point in these arguments about whether a submarine can fly faster than an Apache.
Hval