"Root & Branch review of defence spending announced"
 

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Ministers to start defence review

Hardly likely to result in more money, though, is it?

I imagine it will tell us we face 'unprecedented challenges' in a 'rapidly changing world' where we 'must be ready for a wide range of threats' while ensuring our 'troops are well-equipped to do the job we ask of them'.

It will cost money to produce, but ultimately produce no more money.

la fumée et des miroirs, comme d'habitude

cuts....


.

It wouldn't surprise me if they really decimated the Armed Forces. They won't be looking at the long term but what's best for them now. After all the Labour government will have one eye on the general election and will be looking to find the money to 'bribe' the voters.

Dear Gordon,
Please recover the costs paid out to the errant banks, by whatever means necessary, as I don't want the IMF to downgrade our debt to junk-bond status.
Love
The Treasury

So, rather than ditch the noose around our neck which is the NHS, we should forgoe our national security and give in to the mamby-pamby left social reform brigade and drive the state into the abyss.

Left, Right, or somewhere in between, they'll all do the same - all they're interested in is votes! Sod the country, sod the state they've got us into, sod the guys who are fighting in their name with inadequate support.

So.........those doom-mongers out there - you'd rather stagger along as we are? Last full formal review was 1998 wasn't it?
11 years on and you don't think the sensible thing, whatever the outcome, is to have a formal review? At least there might be some discussion and decision on the subject.

Ahh nostalgia! I remember the last one well, the results of which were just coming out as I finished my training on the E3 OCU. SDR held such a lot of promise coming after the Torys Peace Dividend, Options for change and Front Line First, such wonderful romantic names!

I am sure this one will be different!

:\

Why single out Defence?
 

There needs to be a comprehensive spending review across the WHOLE of the big spending departments. Notably Health, Education, Social Security and to include Police and not just Defence.

Gone are the days when Defence was once "fat". It is now very lean indeed and there are not easily identifiable bases to close.....RAFG is gone, Hong Kong went 20 years ago, there is an endless list of stations that have closed or earmarked for closure. Whats left? Where next?

Things are serious. Cut any more and the "patient" won't take it. Particularly when the operational commitments that this government got us into aren't going to go away anytime soon.:ugh:

2.5% of GDP is miserly as it is and anything less will make having the armed forces pointless, except perhaps for the odd ceremonial occasion or as a "token" force.

MB

To be seriously simplistic about this:-

1. The Government needs to tell the military what their tasks and roles are; do we have anyone in the Governement who even knows this or can decide?

2. The military need to tell the Government what equipment and manpower they need to perform these tasks and roles.

3. The Government must provide the funding for all aspects of these or accept that the job cannot be done, in full.

A2QFI

Sadly we already have bullet 1 (Defence Strategic Guidance) and bullet 2 (Defence Programme Directory (IIRC!)). What we don't have is anyone who is willing to stand up and state the latter part of bullet 3! We are, at times, our own worst enemy with our can do attitude. The other problem we have is that the military staff are heavily involved in "socialising" DSG and tend to protect single service issues at all costs! You are right when you suggest there is no 'independant' body who could produce such guidance.

I also fear this will be little more than a sticking plaster approach - with approx 12 months to when the election must happen little will be done that will affect UK plc jobs so there will be no huge changes to Typhoon / Carriers (and therefore JCA) etc. Furthermore, you get to the point when you can't make any financial decisions (in either direction) in public service so as not to sway (bribe) opinion in marginal seats (I'm sure someone more intelligent will remind me of the proper words for this!).

Their only way forward , IMHO, is to reduce commitments in terms of size, concurrency and projected length of operation. Not the place to discuss in depth here but perhaps the current op plus some home commitments may be it for the foreseeable future. Would mean operating very much 'hand to mouth' with no contingent capability whilst AFG is still ongoing. From an RAF perspective that would make the future very bleak for JFH and GR4 (despite being on ops). In terms of equipment purchases - if it isn't needed right know it goes onto the back burner. You could even squeeze harmony even further to reduce headcount (particularly if you were to reduce harmony from x days away in period y to x days away in half of y [which for some of you would be little more than a reality measure]!). And there's no money for redundancies so the only choice there is to make life so unpleasant people leave ....

Would this be sensible? Of course it wouldn't but there is no other choice. When you think the annual defence budget is spent before it is received it will need to be something quite radical to fix it. We have been backed into the corner through years of not balancing the books and putting off what needed to be paid for today until tomorrow. Savings measures such as cutting flying pay / removing CEA / disbanding the Reds and BBMF / making London based staff live in a tented city in the grounds of Uxbridge etc won't even cover a few months (defence) inflation on the equipment programme.

As for the other state departments - both health and education are 'bailed' out by those who opt out of the public systems available and go private. Any changes to those two areas in particular would need to be similarly radical and swift in coming. And that just ain't going to happen, regardless of the colour of the party.

Now a 10-15pence rise, across the board, on Income Tax. Now that might offer up some new money.;)

...for the NHS.

When will they realise that you can't stop people dieing?

Damn tool makers are taking over the world..... :ooh:

A recent aerospace article quoted someone saying that 2.5% GDP for Defence was higher than most countries which sat at 1.5%. the question was, is the 1% worth it? I.e do we need to fund to 2.5% if we don't have to be a world power . not my thoughts by the way, just commenting on the article. RAeS magazine for June.

..... that'll be a job for Gordon then... :}

Defence review - hardly news for anyone on here with half a brain!

So we haven't had one for over 10 years; SDR put us in the post cold war posture of expeditionary warfare, the New Chapter expanded on that for a post 9/11 world outlook. The big question: what has changed?

Simple, the Govt doesn't want to fund or resource us for the Defence policy it signed up to even after the so called peace dividend.

Ok so we look at it again and the driver is we need to make massive savings in the budget, we can work out what the new policy is later.

Once upon a time, many years ago, I was always led to believe the first duty of any Government was Defence of the Realm. Sadly, that is no longer the case and, if you think Auntie Beeb feels the nation's pulse, the public care very little about that priority. On this evening's News, the announcement of the review was placed pretty much at the end of the bulletin sandwiched between the demise of a minor coffee chain and the cricket. I'm sorry chaps, thats what we mean to the public now. Or maybe the Beeb doesn't reflect society?

On the day that a Labour govt announced an all encompassing review with everything up for negotiation, viewers to BBC Scotland would have seen Quentin Davies (Labour Defence minister) at the carrier steel cutting ceremony make two very interesting statements:

a. that we need the carriers and ordering just one would be plain stupid in case it was needed when it was in refit! (Duh!)

and

b. we can't afford to have any holidays in our (military) capabilities.

So, can someone with a degree in political double speak, explain what that all means?

Once upon a time, the concept of Defence and the nation's security was a given and above the cynicism of party politics - sad that times have changed and I have spent much of my adult life defending the right of politicians to play games with that security.

I too was around for 'Frontline First' and 'Options For Change' and have certainly not seen anything from the 'peace dividend afforded by the Warsaw Pact' - infact the exact opposite.

My 3 comments are that lets unite together and through the chain of command ensure that the H M Treasury, quangos, mandarins and spin doctors all fully understand during the review of exactly where the UK military is with people, equipment, committments - and where it is forecast to be for the next 5-10 years.

Now is most certainly not the time for senior officer single service bitching and land grabs as H M Treasury would be rubbing their hands with glee. However a truly Joint united senior officer delegation giving the harsh and very stark facts, figures and prognosis would be impossible for any politician to ignore unless we are truly destined to withdraw in an islotionist policy as a British Defence Force.

Secondly, the timings for this review is what makes it farcical. A 'Green Paper' by the end of the year and formal White Paper after the next election - so any meaningful decision has been put off and delayed until at least Autumn 10, with the consequences of that eventual decision many months/ years later.

In my own myiopic world of Support Helicopters FMH/FCR decision delayed again I expect with the Defence Review given as the excuse this time. Lets say that the Carriers are binned or Typhoon mothballed with JFH/GR4 fleet or Trident rejected - as every second of every day of delayed decision millions are wasted as people beaver away. In the case of helicopters I would argue (as per the NAO report in 2003) that there is a risk to ground forces if more helicopters are not procured. Even a decision now would take a couple of years to get to the frontline (look at the Danish Merlin example).

But I am not partisan, just using my comfort zone to highlight and show that MoD and H M Govt are in a state of 'paralysis by analysis'. As I have said before, I do not care about the decision (i.e. UK military either are a UN Security Council 'world player' or an Aussie style Defence Force) - but the decisions are long long overdue.

My 3rd point is that the post above regarding a 'root and branch' review of all Govt departments is spot on and the inefficiency of the NHS, Education, Immigration, Work and Pensions should all be conducted and our senior officers have a duty that they are not viewed as 'easy targets' or 'quick wins' for H M Treasury to save money and try and win votes but I have trust in their moral courage.

Most Health care professionals recognise this. Its the Administrators who see it as messing up their patient outcome stats.
Would Agree there is loads of savings to be made in the NHS but the Frontline services are already making them to pay of the useless mouths.

And the Pen pushers will defend thier jobs to the last Doctor or Nurse

Maroonman4. I would totally agree with your comments no one is going to commit to a major spending project with the review in progress so money will sit around to be returned and lost to the treasury. In the mean time morale will be effected as servicemen/women feel their jobs/prospects under threat.

Earlier this evening I heard Liam Fox give the conventional justification for the UK's retention of nuclear weapons, with a cogent repudiation of any unilateral removal of the nuclear capability.

It was a viewpoint that echoes my own.

He then said that this meant that we had to recapitalise the nuclear submarine force.

Hold up, I thought. That seems like a non sequitur.

I'm aware of the supposed 'studies' undertaken before the decision was taken to replace Trident with another SLBM, but I'm still not convinced that this level of strategic system is the only way, the best way, or an affordable way.

I don't mean that I support the only air launched option studied (two squadrons of A330 sized launch platforms) at the time. I don't.

But I do ask why SLBM?

Why not simple warheads that could be strapped on the front of Tomahawk/Storm Shadow and even freefall weapons that might be stuffed into the weapons bays of a JSF? Or to the front of a hypersonic stand off weapon like Boeing's HyFly when such a thing eventually becomes available?

A cheap and cheerful deterrent, in other words?

A deterrent that would be genuinely autonomous and under national command and control, and not tied into the USA's strategic nuclear forces like Polaris and Trident were.

Do we really still need to wipe Moscow off the map, all on our own-some? (And after Rust, do we still believe that only a SLBM could achieve that?)

Is an SLBM the only way of hitting North Korea - or even the best way?

Given that we need nukes, what do we need them for, and what's the cheapest and most cost effective nuclear capability we can get away with?

Excellent idea Jacko (dont say that very often but there ye go)

-Justifies a 5th gen a/c (Stealthy) to maximise chances of delivering weapon
-Justifies a platform to give 5th gen a/c a truly global reach ie LHD or CVF (I dont care which)



Just for once your talking sense

BTW I take it that peice of crap about carriers in AFM in may was your effort?

Was the piece of crap about carriers in AFM this month mine?

No, I believe that was by the Minister, Quentin Davies.

There was an anti-carrier piece the month before, though that was by this year's Aerospace Journalist of the Year winner in the Defence category.......... :p

A carrier to give global reach?

Better hope that we get plenty of advance notice, then!

"Options for More-of-the-Same"

= = = = = = = =

Scrap some of the RN's boats? I'm sure the RAN would love to gets its hands on a few hundred trained submariners to man all those boats our recent White Paper suggests will be procured, or even the current fleet.

Then ROSO is up, and off to the WA mines to earn $$$$ like eveyone else in the RAN.

If we are reviewing the "Root and Branch" then does that mean they are not reviewing the trunk?

So lets ask the question again, do we need super-duper technology for an air force or can we just buy something simple that drops bombs? How many Hawks can you buy for one JSF....?

Jacko and Althenick,

Basic nuclear deterrence theory I'm afraid. An SLBM force is the only true "second strike platform". Doesn't matter how stealthy aircraft are if they are nuked on the ground. The only platform which comes close to the SLBM for survivability is an uber hardened silo based ICBM. Long ago the UK opted for SLBM as giving the best nuclear bang for the buck, whilst maintaining a coherent nuclear deterrence strategy.

There are many books on the subject, two of the best being "Deterrence" and "The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy" both by Lawrence Freedman.

I agree that deterring a rogue state which has a small nuclear capability with Trident is massive overkill, but that is not what Trident is for (despite what a politician might say). Trident is part of the deterrence against the major nuclear powers, Russia and China, and therefore de facto provides a deterrence against all sorts of other scenarios.

Is that old story still wasting ink? Where does it come from? If it’s in the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended, it’s well hidden.

We are not confusing this with the commitment to NATO are we?

I agree Jacko.. I think we're being walked into Trident 2 without considering other cheaper, more appropriate options.

Why not build 3 extra Astutes - we need to keep them building to keep Barrow alive. Each Astute has the ability to carry 38 weapons (TLAM / Torps). Ensure that each one carries 8 nuclear tipped TLAMs + 15 standard TLAMs and 15 torps. In the event of a crisis, any at sea SSNs would be ordered to fire all TLAMs aboard, that's nuclear and non nuclear. If we take the 1 in 3 rule, that would mean 3 SNNs worth. That's a total of 69 TLAMS heading in on the enemy. 24 of which are nuclear tipped. I can't believe that it is beyond science and technology to arrange for all these missiles to be in the air at the same time.

Another option would be for one Astute to be designated the bomber - it could carry 30 nuclear TLAMS with 8 torps.

Many argue that the new generations of AAW systems degrade this style detterent and are becoming increasing available to none top tier states. But I'd counter that you'd have to be very brave to chap to chance those odds - particularly if only high yield warheads were used on each missile. I'd also argue, that if the UK were really going toe to toe with a state that could definitely knock out all of those 69 TLAMs, the world would be in such a sh8#t storm, everyone would be chucking N bombs around.
In addition, TLAM development isn't standng still. The US needs to be able to use them in a conventional strike too - so they are going to get better at penetrating AAW protected air space.

One of the many drawbacks of TLAM as a strategic asset is that it's a bit slow. Three hours is plenty of time to get away from a target area if you are a half-decent mad dictator, as opposed to half an hour if a big boys ballistic message is coming at you.

The limited range of TLAM means that to hold the important target set at risk you have to get quite close to your oppositions coast and their ASW assets. that also means you'd have to have the three at-sea boats sitting in close. Everybody seems to assume that the target set is I'm a Dinnerjacket and Uncle Kim, whose capitals etc are relatively speaking close to the coast. That may be the case now, but in 20 years time when these boats are entering service??

Also, these enhancements to defeat AAW systems are often based around GPS which in this case really is controlled by America.......

hulahoop7

Not a Boffin notes one drawback of TLAM in the role you depict; there are many other technical and military problems with both the weapon and platform in the role you suggest. That is not to say that it is totally unfeasible; after all the basic concept is similar. My instinct tells me that to overcome all the shortcomings you'd end up with a capability well short of Trident, without the same relative decrease in cost.

However, stick a pin in that and for the sake of argument, say that it could be made technologically possible and yield a decent cost saving. It might just create a far bigger problem.

The UK's nuclear posture is locked into strategy and policy developed in the 1960's because we are one of five priviledged states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). the others being China, Russia, France and the US. This Treaty is accepted as discrimantory by its signatories (most, but not all, of the world's sovereign states) on the grounds that it remains the best hope for non-proliferation. On those grounds the big five are expected to play the game by everybody else - and bear in mind it is a treaty largely based on goodwill, rather than legal enforcement.

If the UK's argument for being one of the five legal nuclear powers states that it is part of the balance necessary for global nuclear peace, significantly altering our posture/policy/capability leaves other states to once again raise the question why not us? A low capability nuclear option would be a very attractive package for many countries around the globe, including a number that have all the technology they need right in place (Japan for example). Indeed this very point was made recently by the US representative on Non Proliferation.

History shows us that once a state drops out the NPT (or never signed up to it) it can go nuclear in short order - Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Add all that up and I think many countries would be of the view that either we replace Trident like for like, or we step back and unilaterally disarm our nuclear capability. Which by the way is the long term goal of the NPT.

Nah, Sorry, but you really haven't justified it.

I still don't see that in order to have a seat at the top table (if that seat is ours only by dint of having nukes) we need to have an SLBM based nuclear capability.

I don't see real evidence or proof of the claim that ONLY an SLBM can deter Russia or China.

Nor even that only an SLBM gives a second strike capability, though that's a less contentious claim.

There's certainly no evidence that Russia and China are the threats that our nukes need to deter, nor that we need a second strike capability. This isn't 1974, you know.

And you certainly haven't justified the claim that we'd "end up with a capability well short of Trident, without the same relative decrease in cost."

You may "think many countries would be of the view that either we replace Trident like for like, or we step back and unilaterally disarm our nuclear capability", but where's the evidence for such a view?

Your arguments seem to me to be Cold War thinking at its most stagnant and dusty, with a healthy dose of single service Matelot tunnel vision thrown in for good measure.

Jacko

Draw a circle of say 1200nm range from Moscow or Beijing and see how much sea room there is. Alternatively - note how many airbases are within that distance. You won't get a TLAM class cruise carried internally in anything stealthy, so you're either in SRAM territory plus unrefuelled combat radius of some form of Stealth aircraft (F35 anyone), or you're doing a large unstealthy cruise missile carrier - yet to be developed of course - from UK.

Either way, without a stealth cruise missile - again yet to be developed - there is a significant vulnerability to AAW defences of the weapon on the way in. The time element @500-600kts still militates against deterring any regime concerned only for its own survival.

"Cold war thinking" is not necessarily outdated when nuclear deterrence is the subject.......it's only "progressive" think tanks that try to label it that way.

Why go down the nuclear route?

Biological warfare is far more effective: you can make them all poorly, very poorly, on death's door or holding the door open for the next victim.

It offers a means of escalation - "Stop that or we'll give you the flu, and if you think that's bad.....don't sneeze 'cos we added a little something" - instead of simply laying waste to everything.

How effective would sowing the North Korea water supply with Viagra be?

Jacko,

I'm not trying to justify the independant nuclear deterrent (nor am I or was I a matelot) :)

You are correct in stating that there is a lot of cold war thinking in nuclear deterrence strategy; that's were the IND, and our current policy evolved from.

I'm merely pointing out some elements of deterrence theory (as formed by far greater minds than mine) and the reality of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

There is no evidence that advanced democracies would act in any specified way towards any change in posture by the 5 nuclear powers (which, by the way is the NPT legal status of the UK, China, Russia France and the US, irresprective of who owns nuclear weapons).

There is however, plenty of evidence that many countries observe the NPT with great reluctance because it a treaty which discriminates in favour of the five NWS. India would not sign it and developed nuclear weapons, impervious to the will of the world, as did Israel. India's weapons prompted Pakistan to go nuclear, and Israel's weapons are a major driving force for an Arab nuke one day.

Whether you like it or not, our IND exists to help maintain the nuclear status quo. Downsizing it would be destablilising as it would be identified for what it would be - the backbone of a low cost, high deterrence military strategy. Great for us, but a complete abuse of our status within the NPT. If it seems complex that's just because it is. Already analysts and Government advisors have noted that as nuclear weapons diminish (which they are obliged to do under the NPT) the relative cost of ownership diminishes and therefore the attraction of ownership increases. The end game is not clear: can we get rid of all nuclear wepons safely, or will attempting to do so unleash a sudden charge for ownership amongst those with the technology in place?

In this context many people would argue that getting rid of all our nukes is not only the most cost effective option, it is also one of the safest. Equally, many more (including our mainstream political parties) think now is not the time to give it up.

On a personal note (as all I have written is really just plagiarised from deterrence theory) I an not optimistic about the long term outcome whatever the UK chooses to do. I've always thought the genie has long since escaped the bottle and it is only a matter of time before a nutter gets the bomb and/or somebody somewhere chucks a few about.

Still, I live in Scotland and when the SNP get in they are going to get rid of the UK's IND anyway, so at least I'll be in nuclear free state.

I wonder what the ratio of civil servants to service personel is now? I know it used to be compared to a single service then to save embarassment it had to be compared to 2 then all 3 services.

OFO,

I'd be interested to know how the SNP would manage to get rid of the UK's deterrent. Are they likely to win the next general election in Westminster then? Even if they closed all RN and RAF bases in Scotland, I doubt any nuclear armed aggressor will make any real distinction between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Besides, nuclear weapons are not exactly known for their precision and the UK is a fairly small island; even a relatively small nuke in Cornwall would affect many north of the border.

Twon

Why not, it's our turn. The unelected cyclops and his cabinet of deadbeats, union reps and unemployable retards have managed to screw up every other facet of this country, we are all thats left for a full house.

The current conflict in Afghanistan requires will, determination and organisation. Unfortunately, the Taleban seem to have more of these qualities than our own government.

Unfortunately, the imminent general election will come too late, and is unlikely to change much. The tories will get a grip of the economy, but seem equally disinterested in the Armed Forces.
They will have enough of a job stopping the UK from becoming Burkina Faso, and defence funding will, I fear, be spent on bandages, tubigrips and chalk.

Flights leave Heathrow all day everyday, by the way.

Opening Britain's floodgates

Calm Down
 

All they've announced is a Green Paper. The Defence Review itself wont happen until after the election.

UKPLC is broke. Deliverance is probably right - we can afford about £30Bn. So what do we [U]have[U] to keep doing, and what can we stop doing, and how much do these things cost?

I suspect that, if we keep a submarine-based deterrent, our conventional capabilities will be reduced to a zoo's worth of paper tigers. By which I mean, we will have to give up any realistic of prospect of being able to act independently, or lead a coalition, against any force more capable than the West Side Boys.

Talking to chums working in various HQs and MOD, there is apparently a rumour now doing the rounds that there is serious consideration to cutting the RAF to around 30,000 in any coming defence review.

Has anyone else heard similar rumours? If so, what exactly constitutes a viable Air Force - where is the thin red line beyond which we may as well pack up and go home?

Just out of interest, and to put that figure into some sort of context - 30,000is the same size of Birmingham City FC's ground. If that wasn't bad enough, at 30,000 you could easily fit all the RAF into Leicester, Coventry, Southampton, Derby, Leeds (now a 3rd Division in old money team) FCs' stadiums with seats left over. God now I'm depressed.:\

Redundancy, don't have to wait until IPP, result!!
:ok:

I have heard similar stories relating to all 3 services from a very well placed RN source.