The Forces and the future?
 

Like many others, I am dismayed by the SDSR. I always thought the forces were safer under the Conservatives (who I always voted for). Now I know they are not.

Given the rabid/rapid scrapping of the Nimrods, they are dead...can any of the other decisions be reversed or they gone for ever (i.e. Ark, Harriers etc)?

Recent events have shown the best in our forces (Libyan rescue missions) and the worst in our politicians.

We are screwed. I don't think we need another thread on why or how.

Ah, so it's your fault, then...

So, a sort of self-defence force then, but without the teeth for long or foreign ops?

Er, for an economy the size of the UK, from which we allocate £40billion per year for defence, one of the largest defence expenditures on the planet, currently sustaining one approx sub 10,000 person overseas operation, how exactly are we punching above our weight?

We have not had certain capabilities for decades now. So have not even pretended to try to do everything for some time.

Whilst we remain nuclear, we are playing at being important. Had nuclear gone under SDSR then I for one would have understood the Govt to have consumed a reality pill. If it is true that we have 'one of the largest defence expenditures on the planet', then that is neither reflected in the quality of equipment not in the volume of boots walking compared to other nations whose priority is Defence rather then Global politics.

The UK Military has survived thus far on the morale and quality of its military members regardless of colour or tone of uniform. But this in addition to the ethos of 'can-do' has been obliterated by the Govt whome we serve. The same Govt who wish to retain their presence on the world stage with short arms and deep pockets.

pr00ne Sir,

We have stumbled upon an agreement. I'd just like to know where much of that £40,000,000,000 ends up?:confused::E

FB:)

Arfur Dear Chap,

Its one thing to slash the Defence Budget because you place a low priority or are reluctant to rely upon them or fail to understand the wider picture within which they fit. But its an entirely different matter when having to explain to the countyr why a raft of public services are having to be wheeled into surgery for major financial amputations and not address a £38,000,00,000 deficit in the Defence Budget. Unfortunately the only way seems to be to cut operating costs here as well. This of course means removing great chunks from what , admittedly, is very little. Especially given the amount of money spent on it!:suspect:

FB:)

Proone, as I'm sure you know, but choose to ignore, its not the actual total real cash amount that is spent its the percentage of GDP. IIRC, NATO mandates that its members spend a minimum of 2.0% and ours in the UK is around that figure, just to ensure we meet NATO Minimum Military Requirements.

Granted yes, its a not inconsequential sum. Yes, naturally, it could be better spent and there has been a phenomenal amount of wastage.

We were punching above our weight by pushing the Expeditionary model after the 1998 SDR, but without the investment necessary in both people and equipment to be able to fulfil it. Hence a lot of the legitimate complaints about overstretch during HERRICK and TELIC. Had these operations occurred during the levels of manning/equipment seen during the cold war, theres a good chance we would have got away with it/not had the overstretch complaints.

The matter of punching above our weight and deciding what we expected our forces to do was meant to be one of the questions that SDSR was meant to consider and answer. Not really sure that this particular brief was really met, but by default it seems that the decision has been taken and that this is the direction we are going to go in. Politically and strategically, compared to the rest of our NATO partner nations, we could argue all day as to whether HERRICK and TELIC have delivered any real tangible benefits to us or to the "host" nations, in the way that operations in Bosnia/Kosovo/Sierra Leone did.

My own personal view is that it will not be a bad thing for us to be a UK Self Defence Force, IF we do it properly and allocated resources both financial and personnel accordingly, from the Infrantry, through the somewhat creaky supply chain through to the shiny pointy FJ fleet. I'm not convinced thats happening at the minute, thanks to the usual combinations of political and ministry incompetence and infighting between the service chiefs, among other factors.

Frankly, I dont see the point in a nation our size being involved in expeditionary warfare. Particularly given the prevailing financial situation.

Next big decision, if this is the future structure that the UK forces are going to have to operate in, is whether it is the right thing to replace Trident with a like-for-like system.

FWIW, my own POV is that we should not.

why is anyone surprised at the cuts they would have happened no matter which party was elected. Conservatives were all up for slashing defence in 1981 under Thatcher until the Falklands War and even then she had no idea about what the Navy had in service.
I would sugest that Brown would have slashed the defence budget by a much bigger margin and programes like Nimrod,A400M,FSTA,FRES,Typhoon Trance3, JSF and Carriers would probably have been cut. Astute would have stayed 4 boats, The Type 45's would have been sold and the frigate fleet slashed. The Army would probably lost all its heavy armour.

"The Forces and the future"

Is that not something of an oxymoron?

we try, sometimes for the best of intentions, to do to much

we try and keep a full capability industry similar to the Americans

we also, because it's a great excuse, to try on insist on "interoperability" with our American friends

So we buy the wrong sort of kit for the wars we actually finish up fighting at vast cost

We don't need Type 45 destroyers, nor do we need the Typhoon nor heavy armoured brigades

However politicians are scared s****** of telling the papers and the Great British Public that we no longer have an Empire

What my dear sainted mother would have called a case of "Champagne tastes and four ale (ie 4d a pint) money...":(

nor do we need the Typhoon

does that mean that you think that the jobs it does today dont need doing (for example QRA) or will not be required in the future when Tornado GR4 goes out of service (either through cost-cutting or at the end of its service life)?

We could also close the bases and operate out of heathrow, unless it snows :E

Just when did maintaining a comprehensive Tactical Military Capability become representative of Imperialistic ambitions? And would you criticise the rest of the world for pursuing similar Defence Policies and ambitions. Or is it just the plot of land with a Union Flag sprouting from it that gets your dander up? People like you, Heathrow old fruit, have advanced this very argument for decades, regardless of the state of the world and the state of the U.K.:bored:

FB:)

Yes it is true to say the UK has a comparatively large defence budget but part of our problem is that a relatively small percentage of the UK’s actual spend is on procurement or enhancement of equipment

Some good and valid points there. Over the years I have watched dismayed as the bases have closed and equipment retired far too early. I know we all need to tighten our belts - it is rammed down our throats day after day. I also know the defence budget is quite big.

However, I am fed up with paying for things that do not benefit our country. I don't want to get into a politico type debate, but I wish we would cut the foreign aid budget (whatever happened to charity begins at home?) and cut the huge social security budget. It seems amazing that we attract so many (particularly from new EU countries) migrants who often end up on benefits - must be our generous benefits system?!

Regarding me voting conservative, well...hands up to that.....never again.

I have sat on the outside looking into these forums for years. Never plucked up courage to enter the fray before....just so disappointed with the way this country is going and particularly the whittling down of our forces.

Fox promised no salami slicing - well he is definitely not doing that!

Anyhow, keep smiling!

The main problem as i see it is that we have been involved in major expeditionary conflict now for over 10 years, with a 4 year period of having 2 ops on the go at the same time!

Where did the funding for that come from? Did the Treasury say "Hey guys, you're at war - here's a pot to help you out"? or was it more like "Ooooh, that sounds like dirty military work to me...best you pay for it!"?

Our hand on how and where to spend the Defence budget has been forced for that whole period, therefore reducing funds available for any other capabilities than those required today and playing catchup on UORs.

We're not necessarily punching above our weight, but our leaders may have forgotten 10 years on what we have undertaken, and still undertake!

Well, we've pretty much arrived at the point I thought we sometime would:

1. We've got nukes, but no in-depth conventional capability to provide a worthwhile 'option buffer'.

2. Q: Why keep the nukes at the expense of conventional capability?
A: So that our Politico's can swan around the UN Security Council.

3. When will successive UK governments realise that we are a post-colonial declining power, and cut their (our) cloth accordingly. Our stock on the world stage has been massively devalued by the dubious actions of President Blair & his spineless acolytes - does any other nation now care what we think? If it was possible to do a 'Credit Check' on our National Integrity Rating, what would we score?

Must stop now; listened to BBC R4 'You & Yours' prog yesterday on UK Foreign Aid policy & destroyed a perfectly good wireless; blood pressure Master Caution illuminated. Had to check out YouTube 'Fascinating Aida - Cheap Flights' to calm down. Should be available on Prescription, old boy.