The Defence Industrial Strategy: update - 15 Feb 07

I think what you're looking for starts at paragraph 15. However, the committee's comments sum it up:

I've been away for a week and it would appear that this thread has slipped off the radar.........

However, from The Scotsman: Tories raise concerns over UK's naval power

Among the issues worrying MPs and officers are:

........The much-delayed process of ordering two aircraft carriers. First announced in 1998, the carriers have still not been formally ordered from shipbuilders. MPs on the Commons Defence Committee this month warned that could delay delivery so much that Britain is left without working carriers in the next decade.

Nothing on Hansard yet.

Last Monday, The Times had a more hopeful story.

The Times understands that the Treasury has now agreed to fund the carriers, which will cost between £3.6 billion and £3.9 billion.

Not so optimistic when combined with the one they ran today:

Treasury Threatens to cut £35 billion of defence projects

I can see the Treasury's point -re FRES. This project has been around for some years and MoD seems no further forward. The recent HoC report…..

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/159/159.pdf

acknowledges the inextricable link to C130 and A400M. C17 gets one mention, but quantity of aircraft is not discussed, nor the (assumed) reliance on the US C17 fleet. I don’t pretend to know all the details but to me it looks like another BOWMAN waiting to happen. That is, the budget (£15Bn we’re told) doesn’t include a raft of equipment and capabilities required to actually make it work. Also, if we bought Military off the Shelf (MOTS) it would promote interoperability with our allies which, although not policy, would be a big advantage.

Come to think of it, I’ve described CVF perfectly….

WEBF,

"I've been away for a week and it would appear that this thread has slipped off the radar"

Dear God what a disaster????

Imagine folks finding something else to talk about?????

:cool: :cool: :cool:

Cheers

BHR

At least CVF appears safe.....

On Monday, there was a debate on the Royal Navy in the House of Commons.

Hansard

That this House notes the assessment of the Government’s 1998 Strategic Defence Review that two Future Aircraft Carriers are needed in the post-Cold War world to provide a seaborne base from which British military power can be projected and that a destroyer and frigate fleet of more than 30 ships would be needed to maintain two concurrent medium-scale deployments; views with concern the view expressed by Admiral Sir Alan West, when First Sea Lord in 2004, that the reduction of the destroyer and frigate total from 35 to 25, instead of the 32 promised in the Strategic Defence Review, meant that the country was taking risk on risk; notes with dismay persistent suggestions that six more will be mothballed, leaving an effective destroyer and frigate force of only 19; demands urgent clarification from the Government about its proposal to close Portsmouth or Devonport naval bases and calls upon the Government to provide an assessment of the implications for the long-term strategic vulnerability of the remnants of the surface fleet; sympathises with Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the current First Sea Lord, that a failure to proceed with the Future Aircraft Carriers, which have still not been ordered though scheduled in 1998 for deployment by 2012 and 2015, would make his position untenable; and calls on the Government to clarify its intention on naval procurement in the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.

This motion was defeated by Government MPs. However, a number of important subjects were discussed with many good points made by the Opposition parties. Beware though, that Dozy Doris (Portsmouth North) strikes again.

And once again a Minister confirms the intent to order CVF:
Which is more than can be said for FRES, Typhoon Tranche 3, FSTA etc

WEBF,

For a change you actually posted something worth reading in its entirety.

The Tories made a lot of valid points about the failures of the government to keep to its own plans etc.

My feelings are though that were they to gain power next time round we will not see a whole lot of change of direction.

As I have said before on many threads we have to have a military we can afford and we have to limit where we send them as a result.

It is pointless wishing we could afford all the shiny kit we want but it aint true.

IMHO it would be better to have an armed forces smaller than we have now but fully equipped and staffed, with realistic overseas commitments.

The alternative is what we have now.

Cheers

BHR

Defence spending currently represents 7% of total Govt expenditure. We could afford an awful lot more shiney toys if the political will was there. The drivers for the present situation are not economic, but political- the guys at the top simply don't understand the subject that they are responsible for. From Tonys pov the services have consistently performed and delivered, from Gordo's pov the MoD consistently hasn't. Hence the disconnect.

Sunk this was on the BBC website recently. Incidentally 7% of Government spending - we should be so lucky!

The problem is that senior civil servants in the Treasury don't have to go to war and get shot. Paul Beaver

Yes the Hansard link was interesting. Interesting bacause the Government refuse to accept that cutbacks or delays have happened, blah blah blah. Interesting to hear the Sea Harrier being mentioned repeatedly. This does remind us that as frigate and destroyer numbers have been cut, the importance of carrier based aviation is increased.

Meanwhile - some potential bad news for our French colleagues.

France’s Royal Opposes Second Aircraft Carrier

WEBF,
I think you will find the reason carrier aviation has increased in importance is because the Labour Party want to show that they are investing in the Armed Forces, not just gutting them and sending them out to be gutted.
The main problem is that Blair and Brown have such conflicting opinions.
If Blair had a Chancellor who he could make do what he wanted then the country would be bankrupt with a huge armed force.
If Brown had PM who was not the poodle of the moron in the White House then we would have a streamlined but well equipped Home Defence force.
As Sarkozy puts it so succintly but in his case self-defeatingly, one has to choose between one thing and another. No country, not even the US can afford every demand on the tax dollar.
You want something it has to be paid for.
I have said it many times before. I would cancel the carriers. Easily done since they aint been ordered yet. Cancel a replacement for Trident, same as above.
Then you have some real money to play with.
Cheers
BHR

WEBF,

I read this as good news for the French as Mme Royal has no hope of election and the other two are firm supporters of CVF-FR style

Bill

"I would cancel the carriers. Easily done since they aint been ordered yet. Cancel a replacement for Trident, same as above.
Then you have some real money to play with."

Hmmm, but no way of defending your forces overseas and no way of effectively detering a nuclear armed enemy.

This sort of silly internal bunfight just plays into gordons hands. one service points and shouts that carriers arn't needed, the other points and shouts thsat FRES is to expensive. He who shouts the loudest wins, Gordon picks on the loser and the country ends up where it was in 1982.

Whats actually needed is a little more money for the MoD to enable it to do its job properly- all the service brass need to stand together against political bullying.

Sunk at Narvik is right. Inter Service banter is brilliant and long may it reign. Matters are different, though, when the audience is politicians or Joe Public who votes for the f**kwits. That's where we need solidarity and resistance to any hopes of divide and rule. We do need each CoS and CDS to stand his ground. So often we let the view of what may well be needed in the future to be distorted by the needs of the current tribal skirmishes.

I don't consider myself paranoid but I sometimes wonder if rebellion by the Service Chiefs is being provoked. It would be a great excuse to reorganise the Forces and their place within the Constitution for the "public good". Of course, that passing paranoia extended itself to the timing of the "cash for peerages" matter in relation to votes on Upper House reform.

SAN,

We have no carrier borne AD at the moment and yet I seem to remember a news item or two about some troops being abroad at the moment

As for Trident stopping a nuclear attack on the UK I think that that is best answered with :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: .

Even the US is realising the concept MAD deterrence is no longer applicable, hence the current attempt to get a "missile shield" system in place.

This does not deal with the fact that the most effective way to deploy nukes to either the UK or the US is by truck not by rocket.

It comes back to value for money and getting the right tools for the right jobs.

We are not spending enough on the boys on the ground to allow properly equipped forces to be sent overseas never mind having them defended by carrierborne aircraft. Therefore lets stop going overseas and killing our youngest and bravest in defence of political expediency and corporate greed.

Trident is not going to stop a rational enemy from launching a nuclear attack since no rational leader would do such a thing. As for the irrational enemy, aint nothing going to stop him/her when the time comes.

A nuclear deterrent is a failure if you use it and a waste of money if you do not.

Cheers

BHR

If you must talk about Trident etc do it elsewhere! Not in any way related to CVF!!

Oh, and in response to a comment you made, the reason that carrier based aviation has increased in importance (not just for the UK) in recent years is because of the end of the Cold War and the move towards expeditionary and littoral operations. Hence CVF has been the centre of all the RN's long term plans for over a decade.

Whose a grumpy little puppy tonight..............I personally don't think we need Trident or Carriers. More destroyers with Cruise missiles that is the way forward. Use the money saved from the carriers on the front line troops who are fighting the real war on the ground.

WEBF,

"the reason that carrier based aviation has increased in importance (not for the UK) in recent years is because of the end of the Cold War and the move towards expeditionary and littoral operations"

This would be true if the Admirals made the decisions about what to buy and what to take.

However, in the real world, where the SHAR was too expensive to waste time or money on any longer; and where perception politics are more important than reality; then symbols are more important than logic and planning.

Cheers

BHR

B H R

In practical terms, the Admirals may have insufficient influence over the decisions on what to buy. It is, however, senior Naval staff who draft the statements of requirement for what they actually need. The strategic deterrent is another matter all together and if the Navy is tasked with providing it, they propose the most efficient, economical and survivable means. SD has nothing to do with the CVF other than being the sponge that may remove its funds. If that's your worry, I share it but debating the need for SD is outside the scope of this Thread.

samuraimatt

I concede that you may be at the correct grid reference but would suggest you are on the wrong planet.

CVF vs Trident
 

WEBF Quote

If you must talk about Trident etc do it elsewhere! Not in any way related to CVF!!


It surely could be. Do we really nead a stealthy nuclear deterrent these days? We should have the deterrent but need it be Sub based why not return to smaller warheads based on cruise missiles which could be deployed aboard, yes you guessed it CVF for air carriage and aboard all surface ships or attack subs capable of launching cruise missiles as well as the RAF. This way we would have a nuclear deterrent, a reinforced reason for CVF with suitable air platform and a bucket load of money to do it with. Its a few years since we needed the capability to hide our nukes and have the ability to strike at the other side of the world. Most places we might need to 'nuke' are now within striking distance of the coast.

Might be enough money left over for FSTA, more helo lift and the odd school/hospital.:ok:

S

air raid warning red