Times details proposed UK defence cut options
There is the potential for funding to go up, which is good, but at the same time the Chancellor will continue to play hardball on the need for efficiencies (probably rightly) and there also seems to be a clear expectation of some rebalancing - augmenting capacity is some areas while reducing it on others. This quote from the SoS statement makes that explicit:
"While the major elements of our plans for Joint Force 2025 remain the right ones, in order to secure competitive advantage over our potential adversaries we need to ensure that we can move quickly to strengthen further our capabilities in priority areas and reduce the resources we devote elsewhere."
So we have the potential for "winners and losers", and plenty of ways to skin this particular cat - difficult to know where that might lead. Fortunately the statement also acknowledged the need to retain a need to act in isolation where necessary, even though we'll normally act in concert with others.
"While the major elements of our plans for Joint Force 2025 remain the right ones, in order to secure competitive advantage over our potential adversaries we need to ensure that we can move quickly to strengthen further our capabilities in priority areas and reduce the resources we devote elsewhere."
So we have the potential for "winners and losers", and plenty of ways to skin this particular cat - difficult to know where that might lead. Fortunately the statement also acknowledged the need to retain a need to act in isolation where necessary, even though we'll normally act in concert with others.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,071
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
There's a potential for it to go down too!
My bet, knowing the loathsome creatures inhabiting Westminster, is they will announce extra spending on xyz fleet / capability to be funded from the savings made by chopping xyz and abc fleets and flogging them off, while cutting manpower to free up more funding.
My bet, knowing the loathsome creatures inhabiting Westminster, is they will announce extra spending on xyz fleet / capability to be funded from the savings made by chopping xyz and abc fleets and flogging them off, while cutting manpower to free up more funding.
Just seen an unspeakably weak anti-UK nuke promo by Peter Hitchens on the beeb. In the interests of bias and balance, I trust that the BBC will feature an informed piece on the argument against UK IND? This would be the very least they could do, despite the no-brainer of the UK's effective IND capability. 
OAP
OAP
To be honest, I’m less interested in the funding being currently discussed (we all know what the eventual outcome will be - something less than helpful spun to make it look like a win ... like saying you’ve scored 3 goals but neglecting to mention 2 of them were own goals) and more interested in the politics and manoeuvring accompanying the statements.
We’ve seen what happens when someone goes off message, just look at the cross-Govt clamouring over Boris’ recent NHS intervention. So to have SoS authorising CGS to make some fairly bold statements with potential political undertones / implications in public and neither of them being slapped down is interesting. It suggests a growing link between SoS and the PM and senior elements of the Govt and does it point to CGS as the next CDS? Why was it that CGS was wheeled out and not any of the others?
The first shouldn’t be a shock given the SoS and PM’s history but could be a useful card to have in the hand. As for the second point, the money is on Messenger as next CDS (the RN will hate that), and this clearly represents CGS on manoeuvres; but officially sanctioned manoeuvres in the run up to the announcement on the next CDS. And very active manoeuvres at that when compared to CAS who appears to either being very canny or just has very little to say. Interesting. What does a strengthened SoS and an Army CDS bring for us?
We’ve seen what happens when someone goes off message, just look at the cross-Govt clamouring over Boris’ recent NHS intervention. So to have SoS authorising CGS to make some fairly bold statements with potential political undertones / implications in public and neither of them being slapped down is interesting. It suggests a growing link between SoS and the PM and senior elements of the Govt and does it point to CGS as the next CDS? Why was it that CGS was wheeled out and not any of the others?
The first shouldn’t be a shock given the SoS and PM’s history but could be a useful card to have in the hand. As for the second point, the money is on Messenger as next CDS (the RN will hate that), and this clearly represents CGS on manoeuvres; but officially sanctioned manoeuvres in the run up to the announcement on the next CDS. And very active manoeuvres at that when compared to CAS who appears to either being very canny or just has very little to say. Interesting. What does a strengthened SoS and an Army CDS bring for us?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stand down everybody.
Trump has just told May (in a press meet at Davos) that if the UK is threatened, the US Armed Forces will wade in.
That'll save May a few billion. Let the Spam's defend us!!
Trump has just told May (in a press meet at Davos) that if the UK is threatened, the US Armed Forces will wade in.
That'll save May a few billion. Let the Spam's defend us!!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC. Err, No! "We" are not all bleating and, nuclear warheads on cruise missiles do not suffice. Why would we wish to have a less effective deterrent defence that could kill millions of people but not be effective? 
Don't be misled by people like PH.
OAP
Don't be misled by people like PH.
OAP
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is currently a high profile campaign being waged by the chiefs, some backbench MPs and sections of the press for more money. There has been little effort to justify the request beyond CGS recent warnings about the Russians. That sounds like bleating to me.
Instead of dismissing Hitchens or anyone else who questions these expensive vanity projects maybe we should justify them?
To answer your question I would accept a less effective deterrent than the current Trident system because it would be effective and cheaper. Defence could then spend the savings on other conventional forces.
Instead of dismissing Hitchens or anyone else who questions these expensive vanity projects maybe we should justify them?
To answer your question I would accept a less effective deterrent than the current Trident system because it would be effective and cheaper. Defence could then spend the savings on other conventional forces.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,071
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
It's all like a Mars Bar, you can say your spending on the product as a whole is increasing because you are making the bar smaller but charging the same.
Same with the NHS you can say spending has increased on the rest of it, because the budget is the same but you have chopped xyz thousand beds. You push the increase and bury the unsavoury facts.
Same with the NHS you can say spending has increased on the rest of it, because the budget is the same but you have chopped xyz thousand beds. You push the increase and bury the unsavoury facts.
The cruise missile warheads that dont exist, aren't in service and would need to be developed from scratch? How will going it alone on a reduced capability project that will likely cost more than Trident by the time extra boats are added etc, be more sensible than the hugely cost effective trident project?
QUOTE from BBC this morning
"Mr Williamson, who became defence secretary last November, said Russia had been researching these types of connections and would be willing to take action "any other nation would see as completely unacceptable".
He told the paper: "The plan for the Russians won't be for landing craft to appear in the South Bay in Scarborough, and off Brighton beach.
"They are going to be thinking, 'how can we just cause so much pain to Britain?
"Damage its economy, rip its infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths, but actually have an element of creating total chaos within the country."
Good God! Someone has gone and told the baby SoS the contents of the first lecture at defence college!
Are we all going to be bombarded with this basic stuff as Gavin reads his way through the background lectures for junior? I suppose he will have a hissy fit when he gets to the casualty estimates for Nuke exchanges and Germ/Bio!
OAP
"Mr Williamson, who became defence secretary last November, said Russia had been researching these types of connections and would be willing to take action "any other nation would see as completely unacceptable".
He told the paper: "The plan for the Russians won't be for landing craft to appear in the South Bay in Scarborough, and off Brighton beach.
"They are going to be thinking, 'how can we just cause so much pain to Britain?
"Damage its economy, rip its infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths, but actually have an element of creating total chaos within the country."
Good God! Someone has gone and told the baby SoS the contents of the first lecture at defence college!
Are we all going to be bombarded with this basic stuff as Gavin reads his way through the background lectures for junior? I suppose he will have a hissy fit when he gets to the casualty estimates for Nuke exchanges and Germ/Bio!
OAP
Trident is the best VFM effective deterrent.
OAP
If you think Defence would be allowed to keep the savings, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Any savings (actually cuts) would be grabbed by the Treasury to spend on the black hole that is the NHS, because, apparently, the great British public want unlimited resource for the 'free' NHS. And its a vote winner.
There is an irony here. When the UK first decided to become a nuclear nation (which people tend to forget was the act of the Labour government [mainly driven by Nye Bevan] in 1952 and was actually opposed by the Tories of the day) one of the principle motivations was to save money. At the time it was belived that the whole of western europe faced a serious threat from Soviet expansionism (which some suggest was later shown to be real by the building of the Berlin Wall and the action in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in the 60s), and the development & deployment of nuclear deterents was deemed toi be substantially cheaper than maintaining and equipping the size & scope of conventional forces which would otherwise be needed to assure the security of western europe. The Force-Multiplier effect of the strategic and tactical nuclear weapons allowed for a much cheaper defence budget.
After the cold war ended we went through a period where the soviet threat was certainly less credible, but with the rise of the post-glasnost despots (principally Putin) it is once more becoming credible (as evidenced by the summary annexation of the Crimea). So at the very time when we NEED a force balance we should surelyt not be looking to replace nuclear deterents with what could only ever be a LESSER military effect in conventional forces, because there is no way the UK could afford to create a force-match in convenetional forces. We couldn;'t even dream of returning the RAF to 1,000 front-line aircraft and the RN to 100 capital ships (including five carriers, over 20 SSNs, heavier cruisers or "destroyers on steroids"), never mind the standing army of at least half a million and a mechanised infantry supported by 2,000 main battle tanks. Our available spondulicks simply won't stretch to such extravagance, but we *can* afford the cheaper option (nukes).
Seemples.
PDR
After the cold war ended we went through a period where the soviet threat was certainly less credible, but with the rise of the post-glasnost despots (principally Putin) it is once more becoming credible (as evidenced by the summary annexation of the Crimea). So at the very time when we NEED a force balance we should surelyt not be looking to replace nuclear deterents with what could only ever be a LESSER military effect in conventional forces, because there is no way the UK could afford to create a force-match in convenetional forces. We couldn;'t even dream of returning the RAF to 1,000 front-line aircraft and the RN to 100 capital ships (including five carriers, over 20 SSNs, heavier cruisers or "destroyers on steroids"), never mind the standing army of at least half a million and a mechanised infantry supported by 2,000 main battle tanks. Our available spondulicks simply won't stretch to such extravagance, but we *can* afford the cheaper option (nukes).
Seemples.
PDR
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the cruise missile option, if this is not feasible then I'm sure we could develop another delivery system. We could use the money we are spending developing successor. I'm sure even with the MoDs track record there would be savings and the RN wouldn't have to man the submarines so freeing up manpower.