Times details proposed UK defence cut options
The FI, just as all other UK assets, need to be protected within the umbrella of UK Defence. The islands also support the UK claim to the large chunk of the Antarctic that we hold. The UK defence of it's territories requires a wide range of capabilities in depth. However, funding is not a bottomless pit of cash and so, to avoid the hollowing out of the core Defence of the realm capabilities, we should not have wasted ££Billions on the ridiculous QEc Expeditionary war capability. TBH, the whole Expeditionary warfare concept is a corruption of UK Defence. UK foreign policy is not one of Crusading AFAIK. The UK is not declared as a nation bent on subjugation of other nations. However, defence can require attack and, the ability to attack and claim territory should be a part of UK Defence core ability. That is the crux. The Expeditionary capability should be drawn from the fully formed, equipped and capable core Defence forces, if required, not the other way around!
The question of how large and capable the core UK Defence forces need to be is simply answered by assessment of the threats and our methods needed to counter them successfully. Some additional elements of capability for limited Expeditionary warfare might be added but, the basic principle must be, core first! Beyond that, unless the UK is considering mounting Crusading warfare against other nations, there is no reason for cutting core Defence capabilities to support Expeditionary pie in the sky and to the great detriment of UK National security.
OAP
The question of how large and capable the core UK Defence forces need to be is simply answered by assessment of the threats and our methods needed to counter them successfully. Some additional elements of capability for limited Expeditionary warfare might be added but, the basic principle must be, core first! Beyond that, unless the UK is considering mounting Crusading warfare against other nations, there is no reason for cutting core Defence capabilities to support Expeditionary pie in the sky and to the great detriment of UK National security.
OAP
2. Potential threats require a manned, trained, equipped and funded armed forces - otherwise point 1 becomes moot.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK is not declared as a nation bent on subjugation of other nations.
Old habits die hard, as the Iraqis and others are endlessly reminded.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The islands also support the UK claim to the large chunk of the Antarctic that we hold."
Actually we don't .. we have a histiric claim as do many others and many of them overlap - the Antarctic Treaty puts these into abeyance
Anyone can go anywhere and set up any base in Antarctica -
Places liek teh S Sandhcih Islands and S georgia are somewhat different
Actually we don't .. we have a histiric claim as do many others and many of them overlap - the Antarctic Treaty puts these into abeyance
Anyone can go anywhere and set up any base in Antarctica -
Places liek teh S Sandhcih Islands and S georgia are somewhat different
"The islands also support the UK claim to the large chunk of the Antarctic that we hold."
Actually we don't .. we have a histiric claim as do many others and many of them overlap - the Antarctic Treaty puts these into abeyance
Anyone can go anywhere and set up any base in Antarctica -
Places liek teh S Sandhcih Islands and S georgia are somewhat different
Actually we don't .. we have a histiric claim as do many others and many of them overlap - the Antarctic Treaty puts these into abeyance
Anyone can go anywhere and set up any base in Antarctica -
Places liek teh S Sandhcih Islands and S georgia are somewhat different
OAP
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Battle of Sedwill's
The government is heading for a showdown over the prospect of serious cuts to the armed forces in the forthcoming National Security Capability Review.
This will pit Mark Sedwill, newly knighted national security adviser (who developed a close rapport with Theresa May at the Home Office when he was the top civil servant) against Gavin Williamson, the new defence secretary and former chief whip who is under strong pressure from top brass to resist cuts.
There is little doubt in Whitehall that the winner will be Sedwill, getting the boost he wants for the intelligence and security agencies, GCHQ and MI5. The message was clear as soon as the review was announced in the summer: the word "defence" does not appear in the title. It is being conducted not by the Ministry of Defence but by Sedwill himself, who regards cyber warfare and terrorism - the domain of the spooks - as the two main threats to Britain's security.
The point is not lost elsewhere in Whitehall, notably the Treasury, that the bulk of defence spending on the new fleet of nuclear missile submarines to replace Trident, and two aircraft carriers with empty flight decks, is of little use against terrorists or cyber attacks. The MoD is also under attack from its traditional friend, the Commons defence committee, over reckless spending. The navy is short of ships, the RAF short of pilots, and the army now not much larger than at the time of Oliver Cromwell. But its over-ambitious projects mean the MoD already faces a funding black hole of at least £20bn
One way to relieve pressure on the defence budget is to take the cost of the nuclear arsenal out of said budget and pay for it separately. After all, say MoD officials, the decision to maintain a nuclear arsenal is a political one - an argument that will attract little sympathy in the Treasury. The armed forces' only consolation is that Williamson appears to have persuaded May to put off making a decision about how their resources will be cut until later in the year.
The government is heading for a showdown over the prospect of serious cuts to the armed forces in the forthcoming National Security Capability Review.
This will pit Mark Sedwill, newly knighted national security adviser (who developed a close rapport with Theresa May at the Home Office when he was the top civil servant) against Gavin Williamson, the new defence secretary and former chief whip who is under strong pressure from top brass to resist cuts.
There is little doubt in Whitehall that the winner will be Sedwill, getting the boost he wants for the intelligence and security agencies, GCHQ and MI5. The message was clear as soon as the review was announced in the summer: the word "defence" does not appear in the title. It is being conducted not by the Ministry of Defence but by Sedwill himself, who regards cyber warfare and terrorism - the domain of the spooks - as the two main threats to Britain's security.
The point is not lost elsewhere in Whitehall, notably the Treasury, that the bulk of defence spending on the new fleet of nuclear missile submarines to replace Trident, and two aircraft carriers with empty flight decks, is of little use against terrorists or cyber attacks. The MoD is also under attack from its traditional friend, the Commons defence committee, over reckless spending. The navy is short of ships, the RAF short of pilots, and the army now not much larger than at the time of Oliver Cromwell. But its over-ambitious projects mean the MoD already faces a funding black hole of at least £20bn
One way to relieve pressure on the defence budget is to take the cost of the nuclear arsenal out of said budget and pay for it separately. After all, say MoD officials, the decision to maintain a nuclear arsenal is a political one - an argument that will attract little sympathy in the Treasury. The armed forces' only consolation is that Williamson appears to have persuaded May to put off making a decision about how their resources will be cut until later in the year.
OAP
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
Taken them long enough to figure this out..
MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News
They should of asked in here
MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News
They should of asked in here
Taken them long enough to figure this out..
MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News
They should of asked in here
MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News
They should of asked in here
OAP
Taken them long enough to figure this out..
MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News
They should of asked in here
MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News
They should of asked in here
What a shame they didn't look at where the money is actually going. QEC isn't even the biggest budget line in the Navy EP. Nor is the combined QEC and F35 the biggest item in the overall EP - in total or in in-year spend. Typhoon is still by far the biggest spend (total and in-year) and FSTA is only just below the combined QEC/F35.
That's before you start looking at the submarine budget....
What a shame they didn't look at where the money is actually going. QEC isn't even the biggest budget line in the Navy EP. Nor is the combined QEC and F35 the biggest item in the overall EP - in total or in in-year spend. Typhoon is still by far the biggest spend (total and in-year) and FSTA is only just below the combined QEC/F35.
That's before you start looking at the submarine budget....
That's before you start looking at the submarine budget....
OAP
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excepting of course that the SDSR mandates the capability. i.e. the defence programme is written around QEC/F35 and Nuclear deterrence. These are the last capabilities to ditch according to SDSR.
You might almost ask if we didn't have them right now, would we order Typhoon? Or a Tornado replacement? Or Rivet Joint? Or A400M? Or HC6? Or T26? Or maintain an army of 80000? Or order new tanks/MICV?
The fact that the future of the Sentry capability is uncertain is a measure of the situation - a situation that has not been brought about by "the carriers", as only a cursory examination of budgets and where they've been spent would reveal. It is particularly disappointing that the chair of the PAC refers to Carrier Strike as the second biggest expense after the nuclear deterrent - which is patently and demonstrably untrue by spending ten minutes looking at the EP and the NAO major projects reports.
If you read the PAC report, it's actually a case of repeating nebulous "facts" - a great example being that the aircraft are "too heavy to land on the ship" - culled from random media sources, as "concerns", despite the fairly firm rebuttals given by the witnesses.
If you look at defence as a combination of what is required for national self-defence, plus what really adds value to an alliance (ie NATO), what you end up with is :
National Defence
Air - AWAC, MPA and DCA
Sea - CASD, plus Sea denial and security (SSK, MCMV, OPV)
Land - Coastal artillery, COIN light forces
Alliance contribution :
Air - Heavy lift AT, sigint, and possibly Sentinel
Sea - SSN, Amphib and Carrier Strike
Land - Possibly heavy armour
Everything else (OCA, Deep Strike, Tac AT, DD/FF, Infantry etc) is heavily duplicated throughout NATO.
The alliance contribution bit above is that which only the US and in their absence the UK and possibly FR can bring to the table. If you want to add value you do that. If you want to duplicate stuff (check out the VFM there!) you buy from the "everything else" list.
Just for the record, not everyone on here shares the antipathy to the carriers that has become notably more vocal in some quarters as the vessels approach service entry. And NAB is not a lone voice in the wilderness.
There are some who are clear that binning the carriers is not the way to address current problems and that they represent a level of capability that wouldn't be remotely matched by a purely escort-based navy; and that we're likely to have cause to be glad we have that flexible capability in the years ahead as the world becomes an increasingly unpredictable and dangerous place.
None of which is to say that we don't need more escorts, and other conventional capability, because we do. But binning some of the most capable assets we have just invested in isn't the answer. Defence needs to be properly funded and I'd respectfuly suggest that commentators would do well to get behind that idea rather than approaching things from an internecine perspective.
There are some who are clear that binning the carriers is not the way to address current problems and that they represent a level of capability that wouldn't be remotely matched by a purely escort-based navy; and that we're likely to have cause to be glad we have that flexible capability in the years ahead as the world becomes an increasingly unpredictable and dangerous place.
None of which is to say that we don't need more escorts, and other conventional capability, because we do. But binning some of the most capable assets we have just invested in isn't the answer. Defence needs to be properly funded and I'd respectfuly suggest that commentators would do well to get behind that idea rather than approaching things from an internecine perspective.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd keep them if the money was there - but it's not " short-term financial exigency" - it's been going on for 20 years
underfunding plus grossly mis-managed budgets
and I can't see how that is going to change - especially under this Govt.
underfunding plus grossly mis-managed budgets
and I can't see how that is going to change - especially under this Govt.