"UK is worlds 4th largest military"
cokecan,
IIRC, far from this being simple US showing off, somewhere in their doctrine it states that they will maintain a level of superiority X times that of their allies and 4X times that of potential opponents. In effect, our attempts to keep up with the latest technologies is doing nothing more than breading an arms race amongst allies as well as opponents.
That's fine, but if the rest of the world decided not to try and keep up, then the US wouldn't feel the need to keep advancing at such a rate and to such an extent, and indeed might end up finding itself the odd one out and decide to ease off for a while. And seeing how few platforms we have these days - across all the Services - I for one would be more than happy to ease off the accelerator a little if it meant we were a little more sustainable by virtue of having greater numbers.
IIRC, far from this being simple US showing off, somewhere in their doctrine it states that they will maintain a level of superiority X times that of their allies and 4X times that of potential opponents. In effect, our attempts to keep up with the latest technologies is doing nothing more than breading an arms race amongst allies as well as opponents.
That's fine, but if the rest of the world decided not to try and keep up, then the US wouldn't feel the need to keep advancing at such a rate and to such an extent, and indeed might end up finding itself the odd one out and decide to ease off for a while. And seeing how few platforms we have these days - across all the Services - I for one would be more than happy to ease off the accelerator a little if it meant we were a little more sustainable by virtue of having greater numbers.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edited - just read your alternative Melchette and yes it does make you think if that is the model for the Navy then could it apply to the air environment as well. What of our defence industry though - would the likes of BAE support it. I guess that there are a lot of vested interests in developing the latest generation kit to replace the last latest generation kit.
Last edited by TomJoad; 2nd Sep 2013 at 22:24.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
We don't like paying taxes so for a free market economy subsidies were reduced or abolished. Just remember though who doesn't permit State subsidies.
One taxes, just who sets VAT rates? A good may be zero rated but another have a higher rate. Once VAT exceeds 15% the Government is powerless to reduce it below 15%.
Who directly allows manufacturing to decline? We do, ably assisted by the EU.
We are then betwixt the proverbial. Build a British fighter aircraft and
we keep the cash in UK by means of all the taxes - company tax, business rates, VAT spend by the workers - and perhaps 80% or more remains in UK. If we can't export it though we lose economies of scale.
If we buy foreign we lose expertise, the money goes, and we also lose some operational clout.
Maybe the old system, build and sell a first rate and affordable airframe, allow the customer to install the cocktail cabinet and carpets or the missile system was better.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good analysis Pontius - but the problem of building military stuff for export is that you finish up subsidising the sales if you aren't carefull. Probably the last aircraft we exported in any numbers and didn't have to subsidise the buyer in some way was the Hunter.
By the late 50's the French, Russians and Yanks were all offering serious kit on deals that made the eyes water. We were never able to compete.
probably the worst cases of gold plating by British Industry were in naval vessels TBH - we used to sell a lot but as we increased the spec the costs went through the roof and, since hardly any potential buyer needed the capability, they went elsewhere
By the late 50's the French, Russians and Yanks were all offering serious kit on deals that made the eyes water. We were never able to compete.
probably the worst cases of gold plating by British Industry were in naval vessels TBH - we used to sell a lot but as we increased the spec the costs went through the roof and, since hardly any potential buyer needed the capability, they went elsewhere
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,081
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
As said by myself and PN you can build a wolrdbeater but when that is so expensive and so complex that you can only build them in minute numbers, the advantage is lost.
Using the Ship as an example, it may well have the capability of 10 or more previous models, but 10 boats sitting on the pond will not be taken out with one missile or torpedo, 10 boats sitting on a pond will be able to react quicker to anything happening in their part of the pond and 10 boats sitting on a pond can be at different places on that pond doing different things.
Look at the falklands War, if you were dependant on one or two of a class as opposed to the multitude they had you wouldn't want to put that asset in harms way, simply because you have nothing to replace it with unless you build another, so it in effect becomes another Carrier kept back well out of harms way and not in there covering the landings in San Carlos bay etc.
Hitler never learnt that lesson, in the Panther and Tiger he had two of the worlds best built, best gunned and over complex tanks the world had ever seen, and even if they had a kill ratio of 10-1 (Tiger), low production runs due to over engineered complexity and hence unreliability on a battlefield was its achillies heel, that reduced the rate to 3.9-1, but then swamp the battlefield with cheap and quick to build Shermans and T34's and the die was cast.
.
Using the Ship as an example, it may well have the capability of 10 or more previous models, but 10 boats sitting on the pond will not be taken out with one missile or torpedo, 10 boats sitting on a pond will be able to react quicker to anything happening in their part of the pond and 10 boats sitting on a pond can be at different places on that pond doing different things.
Look at the falklands War, if you were dependant on one or two of a class as opposed to the multitude they had you wouldn't want to put that asset in harms way, simply because you have nothing to replace it with unless you build another, so it in effect becomes another Carrier kept back well out of harms way and not in there covering the landings in San Carlos bay etc.
Hitler never learnt that lesson, in the Panther and Tiger he had two of the worlds best built, best gunned and over complex tanks the world had ever seen, and even if they had a kill ratio of 10-1 (Tiger), low production runs due to over engineered complexity and hence unreliability on a battlefield was its achillies heel, that reduced the rate to 3.9-1, but then swamp the battlefield with cheap and quick to build Shermans and T34's and the die was cast.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 3rd Sep 2013 at 15:02.
Gentleman Aviator
somewhere in their doctrine it states that they will maintain a level of superiority X times that of their allies and 4X times that of potential opponents
ISTR the doctrine then was to be bigger (even by one ship) than the next two biggest navies combined......
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good parallel, hh. In effect the Dreadnought programme placed us in an arms race against ourselves! It may not have started WWI but it was a major reason we became involved as opposed to viewing from a respectful distance.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBH I think we'd have had to fight Germany at some time even without the dreadnaughts - the kaiser & Tirpitz were determined to build up a navy at least as big as the RN even in pre-dreadnaught times
We were able to outbuild them anyway - but of course the German Army had first call on funds whereas in was the opposite way round in the UK
We were able to outbuild them anyway - but of course the German Army had first call on funds whereas in was the opposite way round in the UK
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's all true, hh but the point is we started with a huge lead which even the most fanatical Teutonic commitment would have taken decades to match.; in 1907 we had 62 battleships versus Germany's 12! By inventing the dreadnought we made them all obsolete overnight and so levelled the scores.
To come back to the present day, what do folks think of the comments recently by CAS saying our military is less capable than the Argies, amongst others, promping a robust response from Pihilip Hammond?
To come back to the present day, what do folks think of the comments recently by CAS saying our military is less capable than the Argies, amongst others, promping a robust response from Pihilip Hammond?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: ........
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4th in how much we spend?
Surely we're first in how much of our military spend is wasted on failed projects?
Does anyone else have a higher proportion of failed major projects? Of a higher proportion of money lost as a result?
Surely we're first in how much of our military spend is wasted on failed projects?
Does anyone else have a higher proportion of failed major projects? Of a higher proportion of money lost as a result?
The first time you do things, you tend to do them wrong. If you're the first in the world then there are no examples to follow. Even if you're not the 1st you might be the first to face your particular set of circumstances.
1) Don't get rid of your experienced people
2) Don't let them block the efforts of new people to learn by doing.
3) Expect to fail, try to do it cheaply by testing things and investigating things long before it becomes critical for you to have a fully working, full scale version of them. The times when you have no critical requirement are golden opportunities to train.
4) Don't see failure as a reason to give up - it's the price of learning.
I was thinking that in a way, the economy, the manufacturing sector, project managers are rather like the 4th armed service. They need to be in trained, go on exercises, be prepared continuously to output all the things that might be needed.
e.g. take the Bloodhound SSC project. That seems like great training for everyone involved in the development of a new product and by military standards it is probably quite cheap. There need to be lots of projects to develop things if you are to build up the skills of people in doing it.
1) Don't get rid of your experienced people
2) Don't let them block the efforts of new people to learn by doing.
3) Expect to fail, try to do it cheaply by testing things and investigating things long before it becomes critical for you to have a fully working, full scale version of them. The times when you have no critical requirement are golden opportunities to train.
4) Don't see failure as a reason to give up - it's the price of learning.
I was thinking that in a way, the economy, the manufacturing sector, project managers are rather like the 4th armed service. They need to be in trained, go on exercises, be prepared continuously to output all the things that might be needed.
e.g. take the Bloodhound SSC project. That seems like great training for everyone involved in the development of a new product and by military standards it is probably quite cheap. There need to be lots of projects to develop things if you are to build up the skills of people in doing it.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned that despite all that "capability" a number of those countries at the top of the list have spent the last 10 years getting their arses handed to them by tribesmen with IEDs, RPGs and Kalashnikovs.
I hate to use the phrase "asymmetric warfare" but despite all the Staff College teaching on that subject we have demonstrated that when you are equipped for conventional warfare, that's the only tool you have in your bag. Typhoon, Type 45 and Challengers have not exactly proven to be decisive in Afghanistan.
While we are waiting for the war in which our equipment is relevant and effective, we are wasting lives and budget on a never ending series of Procurement White Elephants. This League Table is about as meaningless as it gets.
I hate to use the phrase "asymmetric warfare" but despite all the Staff College teaching on that subject we have demonstrated that when you are equipped for conventional warfare, that's the only tool you have in your bag. Typhoon, Type 45 and Challengers have not exactly proven to be decisive in Afghanistan.
While we are waiting for the war in which our equipment is relevant and effective, we are wasting lives and budget on a never ending series of Procurement White Elephants. This League Table is about as meaningless as it gets.
