Times details proposed UK defence cut options
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,825 Likes
on
1,205 Posts
Going back to the 50 yr life of the carriers, it would be interesting to see how many of our assets actually reached their designed lives, Jaguar didn't and neither did Harrier..
I'd say it varies widely. As far as ships go, Ocean is leaving on schedule and the Invincibles broadly made it to their designed 30 years. The type 23 frigates are set to soldier on (if that can be said of a ship) well past theirs. Going back in time some went quite quickly. ISTR the County class destroyers had fairly short service lives, not helped by some built in obsolescence. Tornado must have crossed the line fairly comfortably. Re Jaguar, I don't know what its design life was but deliveries started in 1973 and I think the last sqn disbanded in 2007, which doesn't seem too bad, although its withdrawal was brought forward compared to then-existing plans. Nuclear subs have tended to reach theirs, while I think the Javelin managed about 12 years on the front line.
Last edited by Frostchamber; 20th Jan 2018 at 15:27.
"I'd be interested to hear exactly which bit of the money "isn't there", given that the ships are essentially paid for."
"The hole in the Ministry of Defence's budget is apparently £1.7bn a year, plus the annual cost of up to £500m a year of the UK's Continuous at Sea Nuclear Deterrent. According to a senior government source, "without the cash this would mean cancelling significant conventional capability to affect our operational footprint and status"."
Regretfully we are faced with an enormous short-fall in resources
What do you suggest cutting going forward so we have enough cash to run the carriers and their associated air wing?
"The hole in the Ministry of Defence's budget is apparently £1.7bn a year, plus the annual cost of up to £500m a year of the UK's Continuous at Sea Nuclear Deterrent. According to a senior government source, "without the cash this would mean cancelling significant conventional capability to affect our operational footprint and status"."
Regretfully we are faced with an enormous short-fall in resources
What do you suggest cutting going forward so we have enough cash to run the carriers and their associated air wing?
So un-named source gives number which is unattributed to anything, nor split between EP/ESP/command budgets. Which bits - precisely - of the Carrier Strike capability are currently unfunded? Or is any shortfall in defence numbers automatically the fault of "the carriers"?
Those are pure EP figures. Not ESP or operations. Just acquisition. NAO MPR 15 has the last reliable set of numbers split out.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boffin
The point is not much each accounting line item has it in it - the carriers may well be "funded" right now but when the whole edifice is running out of cash do you really think the MoD are going to leave them untouched?
It's not all (or even mainly) the carriers that are to blame - Typhoon is a much bigger item and Successor/Dreadnought looks like another horrible black hole going to happen.
Trouble is those two programmes are deemed essential whereas the carriers have always been seen as a nice-to-have. Even many in the RN are expressing dismay at the loss of other capabilities and are (rightly or wrongly) pointing the finger at the carriers.
If we were willing to spend 3-3.5% of the budget on defence we could do it and I 'd be happy that we had the additional capability they bring - but if we don't or won't cough up the extra $$$ I have real worries about cutting even further into well-established and core competences to provide for them
The point is not much each accounting line item has it in it - the carriers may well be "funded" right now but when the whole edifice is running out of cash do you really think the MoD are going to leave them untouched?
It's not all (or even mainly) the carriers that are to blame - Typhoon is a much bigger item and Successor/Dreadnought looks like another horrible black hole going to happen.
Trouble is those two programmes are deemed essential whereas the carriers have always been seen as a nice-to-have. Even many in the RN are expressing dismay at the loss of other capabilities and are (rightly or wrongly) pointing the finger at the carriers.
If we were willing to spend 3-3.5% of the budget on defence we could do it and I 'd be happy that we had the additional capability they bring - but if we don't or won't cough up the extra $$$ I have real worries about cutting even further into well-established and core competences to provide for them
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,825 Likes
on
1,205 Posts
Frosty, I mentioned the Jag as though the in service fleet had high hours, the RAFG fleet at Halton was low having been withdrawn about the time Bruggen shut, hence the "kit" could have been swopped over cheaply, I believe the RAF held Design Authority nr the end, but I could ne wrong, The wings on the Halton Jags eventually went to Oman to increase the fatigue lives on those.
Frosty, I mentioned the Jag as though the in service fleet had high hours, the RAFG fleet at Halton was low having been withdrawn about the time Bruggen shut, hence the "kit" could have been swopped over cheaply, I believe the RAF held Design Authority nr the end, but I could ne wrong, The wings on the Halton Jags eventually went to Oman to increase the fatigue lives on those.
"high lethality capability and exportable"
yes & no - unfortunately a lot of UK kit, especially ships, are very high spec and very costly compared to alternatives in the export trade. We design for top end warfare, most countries don't want or need that capability
yes & no - unfortunately a lot of UK kit, especially ships, are very high spec and very costly compared to alternatives in the export trade. We design for top end warfare, most countries don't want or need that capability
Plus with the ever spiralling costs combined with a low risk appetite, we are fast approaching the point where we won’t want to deploy assets for fear of losing them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't agree more but for at least 50 years we've been in that loop.... aided & abetted by the manufacturers.
What were the last major UK weapons that "sold themselves,"??
The Hunter, the early Hawk... Centurion tank, Daring class destroyers come to mind. Since then the kit has become v complex and extremely expensive as we can only afford short runs. When there is a chance to get into a collaborative program we've often either chosen the most expensive option or gone our own way......
Look at the River class..... twice the price of the v similar Amazonas class from the same yard.....
What were the last major UK weapons that "sold themselves,"??
The Hunter, the early Hawk... Centurion tank, Daring class destroyers come to mind. Since then the kit has become v complex and extremely expensive as we can only afford short runs. When there is a chance to get into a collaborative program we've often either chosen the most expensive option or gone our own way......
Look at the River class..... twice the price of the v similar Amazonas class from the same yard.....
And as good as the Typhoon is, I don’t think the Rafale or Grippen are exactly slouches. If the Swedes can rustle up decent kit on their own, maybe we should be popping over to Stockholm to see how they do it. With the size of our defence budget, there are days you look around at what dwindling capability we do have and think there must be a better way of doing this.
With the size of our defence budget, there are days you look around at what dwindling capability we do have and think there must be a better way of doing this.
I asked myself this very question on Friday...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beeb & Press today
Army chief to call for investment to keep up with Russia
Britain's armed forces risk falling behind Russia without more investment, the head of the Army will say.
General Sir Nick Carter will say the British Army's ability to respond to threats "will be eroded if we don't keep up with our adversaries". The speech - approved by Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson - comes amid speculation of potential defence cuts.
The warning comes after Russia practised simulated attacks across northern Europe. In the speech, which will take place at the Royal United Services Institute on Monday, Gen Carter will highlight Russia's new cyber warfare capabilities. The Russian army conducted large scale military exercises last year, including simulated attacks across northern Europe, from Kaliningrad to Lithuania.
Gen Carter will also highlight the Russian army's long-range missile strike capability. While Russian forces were intervening in Syria, 26 missiles were deployed from a 1,500km (930 mile) range. He will add that Russia is building an increasingly aggressive expeditionary force, which already boasts capabilities the British Army would struggle to match. Potential military threats to the UK "are now on Europe's doorstep," Gen Carter will say.
Last year Prime Minister Theresa May said Russia had "mounted a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and disruption" against other nations.
Former Royal Navy Rear Admiral Dr Chris Parry said the British military had fallen a long way behind Russia's capabilities.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: "I think in qualitative terms we would fare very badly, whether it was the Army, navy or air force against current Russian capabilities. I'm afraid to say the world is changing, it's moving. The Russians - and the Chinese - are developing capabilities right now with which we cannot cope today."
Analysis
By Jonathan Beale, defence correspondent
The reality is that Britain would never confront a threat like Russia on its own. That's why it is part of Nato.
But even as a key member of the alliance, the truth is that some of the UK's weapons are increasingly outdated.
While Russia's been developing new Armata tanks, the British Army's Challenger 2 hasn't been modernised for 20 years.
Many have been mothballed as the UK focused on the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain's ground-based air defence systems are also becoming increasingly obsolete and no match for Russia.
Still, the likelihood of any direct military confrontation with Russia seems extremely remote. True, the US National Defence Strategy recently highlighted the risks of a more assertive Russia and China. But for now, the concern is more about those countries using cyber and misinformation to disrupt life in the west.
General Carter's intervention is more driven by fears of further deep cuts to the UK's armed forces. The Ministry of Defence has a black hole in its budget.
It is rare for a military chief to make such an obvious and public appeal for more cash.
But he's doing it under the orders of the Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson. He has sent his generals over the top to put pressure on the chancellor.
In December Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach said the UK should prioritise protecting undersea cables from the Kremlin, as disruption could be "potentially catastrophic" to the economy.
The speech comes as national security adviser Mark Sedwill conducts a review of the UK's security capabilities.
There are concerns in the armed forces that the review will prioritise counter-cyber attacks and terrorism, rather than major defence.
Last week Conservative MP Julian Lewis, chairman of the Commons defence select committee, posed an urgent question in the Commons after speculation that there were plans to cut the UK military by 14,000 service personnel, nine warships and 100 helicopters. Mr Williamson said "hard work" is taking place to give the armed forces the "right resources". Some MPs have called to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP - it is currently at 2%, in line with the guideline for Nato members.
Army chief to call for investment to keep up with Russia
Britain's armed forces risk falling behind Russia without more investment, the head of the Army will say.
General Sir Nick Carter will say the British Army's ability to respond to threats "will be eroded if we don't keep up with our adversaries". The speech - approved by Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson - comes amid speculation of potential defence cuts.
The warning comes after Russia practised simulated attacks across northern Europe. In the speech, which will take place at the Royal United Services Institute on Monday, Gen Carter will highlight Russia's new cyber warfare capabilities. The Russian army conducted large scale military exercises last year, including simulated attacks across northern Europe, from Kaliningrad to Lithuania.
Gen Carter will also highlight the Russian army's long-range missile strike capability. While Russian forces were intervening in Syria, 26 missiles were deployed from a 1,500km (930 mile) range. He will add that Russia is building an increasingly aggressive expeditionary force, which already boasts capabilities the British Army would struggle to match. Potential military threats to the UK "are now on Europe's doorstep," Gen Carter will say.
Last year Prime Minister Theresa May said Russia had "mounted a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and disruption" against other nations.
Former Royal Navy Rear Admiral Dr Chris Parry said the British military had fallen a long way behind Russia's capabilities.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: "I think in qualitative terms we would fare very badly, whether it was the Army, navy or air force against current Russian capabilities. I'm afraid to say the world is changing, it's moving. The Russians - and the Chinese - are developing capabilities right now with which we cannot cope today."
Analysis
By Jonathan Beale, defence correspondent
The reality is that Britain would never confront a threat like Russia on its own. That's why it is part of Nato.
But even as a key member of the alliance, the truth is that some of the UK's weapons are increasingly outdated.
While Russia's been developing new Armata tanks, the British Army's Challenger 2 hasn't been modernised for 20 years.
Many have been mothballed as the UK focused on the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain's ground-based air defence systems are also becoming increasingly obsolete and no match for Russia.
Still, the likelihood of any direct military confrontation with Russia seems extremely remote. True, the US National Defence Strategy recently highlighted the risks of a more assertive Russia and China. But for now, the concern is more about those countries using cyber and misinformation to disrupt life in the west.
General Carter's intervention is more driven by fears of further deep cuts to the UK's armed forces. The Ministry of Defence has a black hole in its budget.
It is rare for a military chief to make such an obvious and public appeal for more cash.
But he's doing it under the orders of the Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson. He has sent his generals over the top to put pressure on the chancellor.
In December Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach said the UK should prioritise protecting undersea cables from the Kremlin, as disruption could be "potentially catastrophic" to the economy.
The speech comes as national security adviser Mark Sedwill conducts a review of the UK's security capabilities.
There are concerns in the armed forces that the review will prioritise counter-cyber attacks and terrorism, rather than major defence.
Last week Conservative MP Julian Lewis, chairman of the Commons defence select committee, posed an urgent question in the Commons after speculation that there were plans to cut the UK military by 14,000 service personnel, nine warships and 100 helicopters. Mr Williamson said "hard work" is taking place to give the armed forces the "right resources". Some MPs have called to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP - it is currently at 2%, in line with the guideline for Nato members.
It's not all (or even mainly) the carriers that are to blame - Typhoon is a much bigger item and Successor/Dreadnought looks like another horrible black hole going to happen.
Trouble is those two programmes are deemed essential whereas the carriers have always been seen as a nice-to-have. Even many in the RN are expressing dismay at the loss of other capabilities and are (rightly or wrongly) pointing the finger at the carriers.
Trouble is those two programmes are deemed essential whereas the carriers have always been seen as a nice-to-have. Even many in the RN are expressing dismay at the loss of other capabilities and are (rightly or wrongly) pointing the finger at the carriers.
Depends on your PoV as to what is essential and what is nice to have. See earlier on minimum national defence vs alliance contribution. While I would also say that Typhoon and CASD are essential, there are a lot of other things that (IMO) are not because they are well provided for elsewhere in the NATO alliance.
However, that should not obscure the simple fact that 2%GDP is a minimum. If we want to do more than minimum national defence then we need to budget accordingly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boffin - I came to the conclusion several years ago that 2% just isn't enough for the UK
We've taken a NATO "aspiration" which includes countries who have never had a significant armed forces or out of area history (Denmark, NL, Belgium etc) and turned it into a hard & fast rule that is ruining our defences
Any historic view would suggest 3 or even 3.5% is required - and that's without adding in the SSBN
We've taken a NATO "aspiration" which includes countries who have never had a significant armed forces or out of area history (Denmark, NL, Belgium etc) and turned it into a hard & fast rule that is ruining our defences
Any historic view would suggest 3 or even 3.5% is required - and that's without adding in the SSBN
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not just the services though, its the entire public service infrastructure and apparatus and for that matter, ethos. Leadership at any level is woefully lacking.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not exactly relevant to the here and now unless there is a chip on someone's shoulder to make them so salty....
Bit harsh on the DanBat and their heavy armour that were at Camp Bastion for many years; the Dutch F-16s that were in Afghanistan and the Belgian F-16s that were in Syria/Iraq!!