Defence Review Result at End of October
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I totally agree much of Govts spending on the NHS International aid and education should be audited very closley. Unfortunatley Defence spending isn't a vote winner closing down some RAF station or disbanding a Squadron is just an abstract concept to most of the UK's population its only if its the RAF Squadron you or a member of your familiy is in or a Station that is on your doorstep that it becomes a reality. But try closing down a school or a hospital it means more to you're average voter. Hence the reason there has never been a full review of the NHS or education system as doing so is electoral suicide. And in the case of the NHS its long overdue.
I totally agree much of Govts spending on the NHS International aid and education should be audited very closley. Unfortunatley Defence spending isn't a vote winner closing down some RAF station or disbanding a Squadron is just an abstract concept to most of the UK's population its only if its the RAF Squadron you or a member of your familiy is in or a Station that is on your doorstep that it becomes a reality. But try closing down a school or a hospital it means more to you're average voter. Hence the reason there has never been a full review of the NHS or education system as doing so is electoral suicide. And in the case of the NHS its long overdue.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed of defence review 'could put operations at risk'
BBC News - Speed of defence review 'could put operations at risk'
In other news "visiting Pope is a Catholic".....
In other news "visiting Pope is a Catholic".....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Ministers may delay key decisions on Trident renewal
BBC News - MPs criticise MoD air tanker deal
Whilst the tanker PFI article tells us nothing we did not already know not sure the dark blue folk will find the potential Trident delay to their taste.
BBC News - MPs criticise MoD air tanker deal
Whilst the tanker PFI article tells us nothing we did not already know not sure the dark blue folk will find the potential Trident delay to their taste.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Independent: Full Trident replacement or zero, says defence chief
The outgoing head of the armed forces warned today that the Government might as well scrap Britain's nuclear deterrent if the decision is taken to downgrade it. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup said any lesser replacement for Trident would not be "credible".............
Giving evidence to the Commons Public Administration Committee this morning, Sir Jock stressed that it was for politicians to decide whether the UK should have a nuclear deterrent. But assuming the Government's commitment to that principle, the Chief of the Defence Staff said:
"We have to have the minimum credible deterrent. If you are not going to have that, then you are better off having zero. Spending money on a less than minimum credible deterrent makes, to me, no strategic sense at all." He went on: "I would be worried about any proposition that was untenable in the context of maintaining the minimum credible nuclear deterrent, which, to me, is continuous at-sea deterrence by a submarine."
Sir Jock, a former jet pilot who has been Chief of the Defence Staff since 2006, is due to leave his post later this autumn. He had been due to stay on for another six months, but soon after the coalition came to power, it was announced he was leaving early.
He told the MPs the two "critical issues" surrounding a Trident replacement were the ageing submarines and the need to maintain a submarine-building capacity. But asked about a possible delay in the "main gate" decision - when the main spending on the project is triggered - he said: "I'm not aware that any decision has been taken along those lines."
The Prime Minister's spokesman said the decision to renew Trident had "already been taken", but the coalition was "examining the issue of value for money". "The position is that we will maintain the nuclear deterrent," the spokesman said. "Clearly, as part of that value for money review you would expect us to be looking at the profile of spending."
Pressed on what "profile" meant in the context, he added: "It means when you spend money."
Asked whether David Cameron shared Sir Jock's view that the only "credible" form of deterrent would be one that was continuously at sea, the spokesman replied: "The Prime Minister had made his view known on this. We are committed to an effective nuclear deterrent."..........
The outgoing head of the armed forces warned today that the Government might as well scrap Britain's nuclear deterrent if the decision is taken to downgrade it. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup said any lesser replacement for Trident would not be "credible".............
Giving evidence to the Commons Public Administration Committee this morning, Sir Jock stressed that it was for politicians to decide whether the UK should have a nuclear deterrent. But assuming the Government's commitment to that principle, the Chief of the Defence Staff said:
"We have to have the minimum credible deterrent. If you are not going to have that, then you are better off having zero. Spending money on a less than minimum credible deterrent makes, to me, no strategic sense at all." He went on: "I would be worried about any proposition that was untenable in the context of maintaining the minimum credible nuclear deterrent, which, to me, is continuous at-sea deterrence by a submarine."
Sir Jock, a former jet pilot who has been Chief of the Defence Staff since 2006, is due to leave his post later this autumn. He had been due to stay on for another six months, but soon after the coalition came to power, it was announced he was leaving early.
He told the MPs the two "critical issues" surrounding a Trident replacement were the ageing submarines and the need to maintain a submarine-building capacity. But asked about a possible delay in the "main gate" decision - when the main spending on the project is triggered - he said: "I'm not aware that any decision has been taken along those lines."
The Prime Minister's spokesman said the decision to renew Trident had "already been taken", but the coalition was "examining the issue of value for money". "The position is that we will maintain the nuclear deterrent," the spokesman said. "Clearly, as part of that value for money review you would expect us to be looking at the profile of spending."
Pressed on what "profile" meant in the context, he added: "It means when you spend money."
Asked whether David Cameron shared Sir Jock's view that the only "credible" form of deterrent would be one that was continuously at sea, the spokesman replied: "The Prime Minister had made his view known on this. We are committed to an effective nuclear deterrent."..........
Agree with him for the first time ever.
If you're to have a deterrent, it's against proper states (Achmed the Awful positively relishes martyrdom) and therefore must threaten the survival of that leadership (quick and invulnerable). None of the oft-touted alternatives (TLAM, ASMP) offer these qualities.
Worse, they would require substantially more investment - new UK warhead unless anyone thinks we'd be allowed to buy off the shelf and in any case, the TLAM itself will be pretty tired in the 2020s when the putative ISD is required.
Flexibility of launch platforms is often quoted (eg Astute or Tiffy/GR4/F35), but they would not offer the speed or invulnerability required, plus again, a huge overhead in setting up - particularly for an airlaunched solution (eg PALs, secure / dispersed storage / training etc).
If you're going to have a deterrent CASD bombers are by far the best VFM.
If you're to have a deterrent, it's against proper states (Achmed the Awful positively relishes martyrdom) and therefore must threaten the survival of that leadership (quick and invulnerable). None of the oft-touted alternatives (TLAM, ASMP) offer these qualities.
Worse, they would require substantially more investment - new UK warhead unless anyone thinks we'd be allowed to buy off the shelf and in any case, the TLAM itself will be pretty tired in the 2020s when the putative ISD is required.
Flexibility of launch platforms is often quoted (eg Astute or Tiffy/GR4/F35), but they would not offer the speed or invulnerability required, plus again, a huge overhead in setting up - particularly for an airlaunched solution (eg PALs, secure / dispersed storage / training etc).
If you're going to have a deterrent CASD bombers are by far the best VFM.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Angry from Purley
The daily mail said today it would cost 75 million per aircraft to cancel the air tanker contract. Are they committed given the shelf life of the L1011 and VC10
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the easiest, quickest and largest defence cut would be an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Once withdrawn, the numbers in the army could be reduced, material could be refurbished as an ongoing exercise, and a modest army retained - primarily special forces, artillery, tanks and their necessary back-up units.
a modest army retained - primarily special forces, artillery, tanks and their necessary back-up units
I'd say that this sums up the problem. The very capabilities we term "modest" have already been cut and are seen as ripe for more cuts. Although recently reorganised, the "SF" are already too small for what is asked of them. Our back-up, including Reserves, are today routinely committed and often form the vanguard. What price an armed coastal defence unit with a Customs section (RN/RAF), and a brigade level contribution to a Euro Army? Fantasy? There's a lot of our politicians would jump at that one if given the chance.
Withdrawal form Afghanistan?
Withdrawal from Afghanistan would be at a far greater costs that the fiscal expenditure on kit (not to mention lives). The UK's remaining credibility within NATO - and our 'special' relationship with the US - would be irrevocably damaged. The UK's international standing (which is much higher than many posters here seem to think) would suffer - as we have shown weakness.
Withdrawal from Afghanistan would be at a far greater costs that the fiscal expenditure on kit (not to mention lives). The UK's remaining credibility within NATO - and our 'special' relationship with the US - would be irrevocably damaged. The UK's international standing (which is much higher than many posters here seem to think) would suffer - as we have shown weakness.
Until the beancounters can transpose the equation to make sense, we are going to keep getting shafted.
C'est le Guerre!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Flexibility of launch platforms is often quoted (eg Astute or Tiffy/GR4/F35)"
I struggle with that argument. Trident is the last defence in a real shooting war when these islands are under direct threat..so the assumption that we'll have any ships or aircraft left to deliver any deterent is questionable.
I struggle with that argument. Trident is the last defence in a real shooting war when these islands are under direct threat..so the assumption that we'll have any ships or aircraft left to deliver any deterent is questionable.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Age: 61
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a question on my mind since the "crunch" and subsequent realisation of our nations dire fiscal straits,
if (or when) GB plc returns to a state considered "wealthy", can we expect a reasonable INCREASE in defence spending?
or have the days of GB as a "power player" gone for good and "capability holidays" become "capability holes"???
i live in hope!!!
if (or when) GB plc returns to a state considered "wealthy", can we expect a reasonable INCREASE in defence spending?
or have the days of GB as a "power player" gone for good and "capability holidays" become "capability holes"???
i live in hope!!!
I suspect that the coming cut in defence spending and associated loss of capability, though understandable, is a false economy.
I see the rationale for cuts, but the world is so uncertain at the moment and I have little doubt we will be paying through the nose 2 years downstream to replace capabilities we didn't think we'd need - probably under UOR's.
I don't see the Coalition as being significantly gung ho, but there is always the chance of NI becoming an issue again, or something unforeseen (a la The Falklands) which we are unable to stay out of or avoid.
I see the rationale for cuts, but the world is so uncertain at the moment and I have little doubt we will be paying through the nose 2 years downstream to replace capabilities we didn't think we'd need - probably under UOR's.
I don't see the Coalition as being significantly gung ho, but there is always the chance of NI becoming an issue again, or something unforeseen (a la The Falklands) which we are unable to stay out of or avoid.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
FT: Rifts open up on defence
Serious rifts have emerged between ministers and service chiefs over Britain’s military priorities as David Cameron’s government enters the final days of intense negotiations over its Strategic Defence and Security Review.
As the prime minister prepares to take the most difficult decisions on military policy since the end of the cold war, Liam Fox, defence secretary, has drawn up a comprehensive blueprint to meet the Treasury’s minimum demand for a 10 per cent cut in his department’s budget over the next four years.Mr Fox is proposing that Britain sticks with its plan to build two new aircraft carriers at a cost of more than £5bn, while buying just 70 Joint Strike Fighters, half the number originally planned. His proposal rules out an extended delay in the replacement of the four submarines that can launch Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.
But Army chiefs are launching a last-minute assault on Mr Fox’s plans, demanding he goes further in slashing high-tech platforms for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force which they believe the UK does not need. One senior Army figure said: “We’re within two weeks of a decision and we don’t have any vision of how our armed forces should be configured in 2025 unless you think we’re only going to be fighting World War Three. We are in a right bugger’s muddle.”
The Army says Britain should build only one aircraft carrier, using it mainly for training and keeping it on “extended readiness”. In addition, Army chiefs argue the MoD should abandon plans to buy the F-35 jet for the carrier, restricting itself to purchasing the land version after 2020 while investing in unmanned combat air vehicles.
However, senior defence figures told the FT that the Navy and RAF will fiercely resist any change to Mr Fox’s plan, which was finalised at a meeting of the defence board at the MoD last Tuesday. It will be presented to the prime minister’s National Security Council in 10 days’ time. Senior defence officials fear fierce inter-service rivalry is standing in the way of a sound strategic outcome. “The Army is putting forward a vision that is uncompromisingly army-centric,” said one. “What is the point of going through a joint process if they break ranks to propose something unbalanced and incoherent?”
Navy and RAF chiefs said Britain needed the carriers and jet fighters to maintain a major military presence around the world. They also fear that demands of fighting in Afghanistan will excuse the Army from the need to make budget cuts.
But Army figures are incensed at the way Mr Fox has backed the other two services. “The idea that we should purchase two carriers is strategically illiterate,” said one planner. “Fox has based his strategy on giving Britain lots of big guns without knowing what to do with them.”
Asked whether Mr Cameron would defy Mr Fox and opt for just one carrier, this figure said: “I believe the prime minister may well do that. It makes military sense, it makes economic sense, it fits with current thinking on the nature of warfare and it fits with what the US military would want.”
Serious rifts have emerged between ministers and service chiefs over Britain’s military priorities as David Cameron’s government enters the final days of intense negotiations over its Strategic Defence and Security Review.
As the prime minister prepares to take the most difficult decisions on military policy since the end of the cold war, Liam Fox, defence secretary, has drawn up a comprehensive blueprint to meet the Treasury’s minimum demand for a 10 per cent cut in his department’s budget over the next four years.Mr Fox is proposing that Britain sticks with its plan to build two new aircraft carriers at a cost of more than £5bn, while buying just 70 Joint Strike Fighters, half the number originally planned. His proposal rules out an extended delay in the replacement of the four submarines that can launch Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.
But Army chiefs are launching a last-minute assault on Mr Fox’s plans, demanding he goes further in slashing high-tech platforms for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force which they believe the UK does not need. One senior Army figure said: “We’re within two weeks of a decision and we don’t have any vision of how our armed forces should be configured in 2025 unless you think we’re only going to be fighting World War Three. We are in a right bugger’s muddle.”
The Army says Britain should build only one aircraft carrier, using it mainly for training and keeping it on “extended readiness”. In addition, Army chiefs argue the MoD should abandon plans to buy the F-35 jet for the carrier, restricting itself to purchasing the land version after 2020 while investing in unmanned combat air vehicles.
However, senior defence figures told the FT that the Navy and RAF will fiercely resist any change to Mr Fox’s plan, which was finalised at a meeting of the defence board at the MoD last Tuesday. It will be presented to the prime minister’s National Security Council in 10 days’ time. Senior defence officials fear fierce inter-service rivalry is standing in the way of a sound strategic outcome. “The Army is putting forward a vision that is uncompromisingly army-centric,” said one. “What is the point of going through a joint process if they break ranks to propose something unbalanced and incoherent?”
Navy and RAF chiefs said Britain needed the carriers and jet fighters to maintain a major military presence around the world. They also fear that demands of fighting in Afghanistan will excuse the Army from the need to make budget cuts.
But Army figures are incensed at the way Mr Fox has backed the other two services. “The idea that we should purchase two carriers is strategically illiterate,” said one planner. “Fox has based his strategy on giving Britain lots of big guns without knowing what to do with them.”
Asked whether Mr Cameron would defy Mr Fox and opt for just one carrier, this figure said: “I believe the prime minister may well do that. It makes military sense, it makes economic sense, it fits with current thinking on the nature of warfare and it fits with what the US military would want.”
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am always surprised at the Army's claim that carriers are a "WW3 platform". Would anyone like to remind them where that majority of CAS in Afghanistan comes from....US Carriers in the Indian Ocean.
If we can afford them or not is a different argument.
If we can afford them or not is a different argument.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: God's county
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when were the army the soothsayers of national defence. '...the army says no carriers, the army says no Typhoon/ F-35...'
Do the government chaps really listen to army generals regarding floaty/ flying things? Surely they'd listen to the respective heads about their respective bits and bobs, rather than they don't need/ they'd be better off with... How about they stick to their own business.
Do the government chaps really listen to army generals regarding floaty/ flying things? Surely they'd listen to the respective heads about their respective bits and bobs, rather than they don't need/ they'd be better off with... How about they stick to their own business.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logic & reason is not the Army way.
It is their way; else they shout louder until such time as those with logic & reason get tired of rants and opt for the quiet life instead.
Whilst tempted to engage in divisive conversation, the bottom line is that as an island nation with the leg iron of the Commonwealth and therefore a need to deploy globally, we need an Army and a Navy and an Air Force. The only option is to leave global commitments high and dry and implode into a Defence Force that would confirm the Cardinals opinion of the UK being a third world country.
We are not as professional as we like to think; and much of that is down to contempory leadership. A trait that has followed economic support into a flat spin. Furthermore, there clearly is no money for recovery and regarding leadership, the potential solution in tomorrows leaders continue to leave early.
It is their way; else they shout louder until such time as those with logic & reason get tired of rants and opt for the quiet life instead.
Whilst tempted to engage in divisive conversation, the bottom line is that as an island nation with the leg iron of the Commonwealth and therefore a need to deploy globally, we need an Army and a Navy and an Air Force. The only option is to leave global commitments high and dry and implode into a Defence Force that would confirm the Cardinals opinion of the UK being a third world country.
We are not as professional as we like to think; and much of that is down to contempory leadership. A trait that has followed economic support into a flat spin. Furthermore, there clearly is no money for recovery and regarding leadership, the potential solution in tomorrows leaders continue to leave early.