Britain and Defence: How much do we need? Who would we fight?

[uk 75]

Watching Max Hastings on Defence on the telly the other day left me with the questions at the top of this thread.

As someone who grew up with the Cold War and the legacy of Empire (Far East, Falklands etc) Defence expenditure was as important to me as Education to a schoolteacher or Health to a GP.

However, after the antics of the Blair Government and the craven behaviour of senior military officers over the last few years in protecting their jobs and prestige programmes at the cost of the servicemen and women who seem always to get the rough end of the stick, I confess to being a lot more suspicious.

Hence another barroom thread.

At present we remain determined to have as many capabilities as we can despite our poor economic performance. We seem unable and unwilling to give up anything on the basis that ever since the Falklands War the military has hit back with "you never know when we might need that".

I understand the need to stay alongside the United States as the only free world military power able and willing to take on the bad guys. However, even the US is running out of patience with the world's problems. Its attitude to the Falklands for example is very similiar to that of Jean Kirkpatrick (US UN representative in 1982) and in the absence of a Casper Weinberger or a George Schultz in the Obama (or even in a Rounders glove Romney admin) I am doubtful how much help we can expect from Washington diplomatically.

Is it now time for the UK to recognise that we are a poorish island of the coast of Europe with no real military threats left on our doorstep and re-design our military along more modest lines. Here are some suggestions:

Army: Now that we have withdrawn from the Continental commitment, is it not time for the Army to be reduced to a modest infantry based force retaining small units of armour and artillery which we can rebuild from the US if the need arises.

Air Force: The RAF has sufficent Typhoons for air defence and some offshore roles. No to JSF but yes to BAe's intelligent UCAV programme.

Navy: The nuclear submarine force would be a capability impossible to get back if we give it up. The Astutes should be ordered as a rolling programme and a new vessel developed. If necessary and the world becomes more dangerous in the next twenty years and US/UK relations are good we can fit 2-3 with a nuclear system to replace Trident, which I would keep but on a very low flame (fewer patrols and boats). The carriers should go, as should the amphibious force. We have no commitment now to defend Norway or whoever. If we lose the Falklands this time, it would take US commitment to get them back. The Type 45s and the new Type 26 should be kept in sufficent numbers.

Possibly the wrong way to go? But then this is the saloon bar.. Mine's a G and T.

 

[bazz]

We only spend about 2 and a bit percent of GDP on defence, we spend more on a whole bunch of nonsense


Cut:


- Quangos
- Special interest groups/projects
- Foreign Aid
- Paying child support to people who are not residents of this country and similar
- The Olympics and associated tripe
- Managers of managers of managers in public institutions
- Allowing NHS/Military to pay £150 for an item that has a RRP of £1.50
- Councils - close them all down, most areas have county, district and parish councils that is 3 lots of idiots for each little town that get paid too much to do too little. Replace with one shipping container, 4 people voted in paid no more than £30k a year starting pay £22k and a basic computer system from a small IT company that will actually produce a decent product. Oh and the spec is frozen, no additions no changes.
The 4 people will be Residents representative, Countil tax collector, Licensing man, and Environmental man. All work done for the council is to use local firms no megacorps. This cookie cutter structure will reduce local government expenditure by billions.


That lot is probably about 4% of GDP at least, build carriers, get drilling in the Falklands, lower corporation tax some more and have a nice cup of tea until the whole financial crises blows over.


Oh and with the change build Skylon sell a couple to the RAF as nuclear deterrent replacement for our subs. B)

 

[zen]

Hmmm...


UK is a leading trading nation on the globe. Among the three largest economies in Europe, and among the seven largest in the world.
So 'poor island' we are not.


So in the wider matter it comes down not to economics, but rather politics and ideology. Some it seems are strongly of the opinion that a state, any state in fact, should not involve itself with matters beyond its borders and if so only grudgingly to the strict limit of its 'region'.
Others hold the view that a state can and should be involved.
These in turn divide into those who want to be involved only on matters of principle, and others only over matters of quantifiable national interest.


Falklands are far better defended now than prior to the Argentine invasion. Frankly its not viable for Argentina to try it now and it would be very visible to us if they engaged in the efforts to gain the capabilities needed to succeed at it. That warning time is great enough for the UK to decide and act to further reinforce the islands.


So let us hear the principle here. If the UK should withdraw, it should be because all states should do so. A principle.
For if it is 'just the UK' then it would seem that such an attitude is hostile to the UK, singling it out for such treatment while hypocritically ignoring what other states do.

 

[uk 75]

Bazz, Zen

Thank you for some thoughtful stuff and I think you offer good perspectives on what level we should aim at. I am still somewhat doubtful as to who the potential adversaries might be?

UK 75

 

[shedofdread]

I was going to reply to this some days ago but as everything I was thinking had aleady been said, I didn't feel the need to waste the bandwidth however on second thoughts, here's a few of my thoughts -

Defence is about far more than detering potential adversaries. A great many high value jobs are within that industry (would be a lot more as well if I had my way...) with the direct economic benefits that brings. Then there's technology trickle down (carbon fibre composites and GPS being but two).

Having capability buys a nation influence. I'm not talking about 'down the barrel of a gun' type influence but many smaller countries do like to have a 'big' friend around when there's trouble brewing and then gratitude can be (though isn't always) shown later.

Ultimately, IF the nation in question can afford it, there's no downside to being 'tooled up to the eyeballs'.

Regards,

S

 

[Orionblamblam]

Chancellor of the Exchequer Chamberlain assures you that there are no enemies that could threaten Britain. You can let down your guard. Even for a moment!

In seriousness: I'm preparing a large store of popcorn for the fantastic entertainment CNN will bring me when Britian goes to war *internally.* not really sure how an aircraft would be used... perhaps when Scotland goes to war with England. Hmmm...

 

[Triton]

With the long development and construction times required for modern aircraft carriers, amphibious warships, and fighter aircraft, the United Kingdom would make a decision that would affect its military capabilities for at least a generation.

Does any one of us have a crystal ball and can accurately predict world events for the next 25 years? Will political relationships and alliances be the same in the next 25 years? Will nations remain friends?

Could any one have foreseen the Gulf War I in 1990-1991 and airspace denial campaign?
The 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina? The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? Gulf War II in 2001? Bombing campaign in Libya in 2011?

What about the arms build up in the People's Republic of China and India? With its carrier force, will China intervene in the Persian Gulf and Middle East to protect its interests and secure oil supplies for its consumption? Will China support governments who are its friends but who may be hostile to the western democracies?

There also seems to be a presumption on your part UK75 that the interests of the United Kingdom are the same as the United States of America and that United States military power can be relied upon to intervene to protect British interests as well as American interests. There are budget cuts occurring in military spending in the United States as well. The United States may not necessarily be relied upon to intervene in a conflict in which United Kingdom or European interests are threatened. United States participation in the 1995 NATO bombing campaign, the 1999 NATO bombing campaign, and the 2011 Libyan bombing campaign was criticized in the United States. Opponents of these campaigns asked if United States interests were affected.

The ability to engage in expeditionary warfare gives the United Kingdom a voice in world affairs and the ability to protect its interests abroad.

The United Kingdom can certainly decide that the Queen Elizabeth-class is too expensive, or forego other military projects and/ or spending, and chose to spend the tax revenue on something else, but it also needs to accept the cost of being impotent in world affairs.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The United States may not necessarily be relied upon to intervene in a conflict in which United Kingdom or European interests are threatened.

No worries, people of Britian, if you are threatened the government of the United States can be relied upon to come to your aid with iPods stuffed full of political speeches. Maybe even stern letters or harsh debates!

United States participation in the 1995 NATO bombing campaign, the 1999 NATO bombing campaign, and the 2011 Libyan bombing campaign was criticized in the United States. Opponents of these campaigns asked if United States interests were affected.

It's more than just that. More than just "how does this affect us," there's also "isn't that *your* job?" A military requirement within or right next to Europe really is Europes responsibility, just as a military requirement on, say, the US-Mexico border is the responsibility of US and Mexico, not Europe. Consequently, it would be as wrong for the US to take a lead role in such things as it would be for a neighbor to raise your kids. That's *your* job.

 

[bazz]

The United States may not necessarily be relied upon to intervene in a conflict in which United Kingdom or European interests are threatened.

No worries, people of Britian, if you are threatened the government of the United States can be relied upon to come to your aid with iPods stuffed full of political speeches. Maybe even stern letters or harsh debates!

The USA did provide AWACS and other intelligence assets in the Falklands but that was only because the Secretary of Defence at the time was very pro British. If I remember correctly he was into military history and that sort of thing.


I don't know who our next enemy might be but what worries me is the next one might be knocking on our door and the USA will put their fingers in their ears go "lalalalalalala" .


Can anyone here honestly say that the UK will 100% never have to defend it's shores, one of its allies or part of the Common Wealth ever again?


The one over riding lesson conflicts teach us is you need to maintain a flexible force that can adapt to unperceived situations as and when is necessary. Taking away capabilities that are bloody hard to replace is just ignoring that message and the plight of many service men who have succeeded at great cost despite not having the right tools for the job.


At least develop some cool exo skeletons if our forces are destined to have to forever tab/yomp every bloody where against stupid odds.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2015/03/23/mod-rebuild-conventional-forces-defense-committee-budget-sdsr-fallon/70333950/

 

[CJGibson]

Quote from Bazz "The USA did provide AWACS...in the Falklands..."

How so? I'm intrigued. Can Ian Shaw shed any light on this?

Chris

 

[TomS]

I believe this is a persistent but untrue story. It seems there may have been a request for some sort of AWACS coverage, but this was denied by the US on the basis that it would have actively involved US military personnel in the conflict.

Even if some AWACS cover had been offered, it would have been limited to the vicinity of Ascension. To support a US AWACS aircraft "down south" would have taken a similar committment of tankers as the Black Buck and Nimrod operations, and there simply wasn't enough room at Wideawake for the dozen or more KC-135s in addition to the RAF tankers, bombers, and patrol aircraft that were actually stationed there.

 

[JohnR]

IIRC the US provided satellite recon information.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Quote from Bazz "The USA did provide AWACS...in the Falklands..."

How so? I'm intrigued. Can Ian Shaw shed any light on this?

Chris

I believe this is a persistent but untrue story. It seems there may have been a request for some sort of AWACS coverage, but this was denied by the US on the basis that it would have actively involved US military personnel in the conflict.

Even if some AWACS cover had been offered, it would have been limited to the vicinity of Ascension. To support a US AWACS aircraft "down south" would have taken a similar committment of tankers as the Black Buck and Nimrod operations, and there simply wasn't enough room at Wideawake for the dozen or more KC-135s in addition to the RAF tankers, bombers, and patrol aircraft that were actually stationed there.

IIRC the US provided satellite recon information.

The AWACS may have been a cover story for intelligence generated by the USN's White Cloud (NOSS) satellite system.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.janes.com/article/50130/3rd-united-kingdom-division-combined-arms-demonstration-validates-uk-s-new-lead-armoured-task-force?utm_campaign=%5bPMP%5d_PC5308_J360%203.4.15_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.aei.org/publication/britain-must-give-the-west-a-lead-on-defense/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social%20&utm_campaign=fdpoped

Britain must spend more - Amb. John Bolton

 

[mrmalaya]

Hello! Given that the Conservatives have conceded that Defence is not a vote winner, the chances of it being prioritised under a coalition government get slimmer by the day. They won't even commit to the NATO 2% because of some tricksy political calculation going on.

I did anticipate the SDSR2015 keenly but now I almost fear it.

During this election campaign we are being told continually in the UK that no one party is in a position to form a government. The only major party that traditionally spends more on defence is fighting shy of committing to anything explicitly other than 4 boats for the Successor programme and new Apaches.

 

[bobbymike]

Also of interest his YouTube channel has good WWII content

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7JxykuyxBo

 

[Justo Miranda]

Please, let's talk seriously. All those cold war weapons and political opinions aimed at influencing electorally are only the paint that covers the defense machine. Everyone who knows me knows that I am a huge fan of the British Empire and I cannot believe that the fate and security of what remains of it depends on the decisions of the politicians we see in the news. Behind this screen there have to be very intelligent people who know that security depends on information, to know who the real enemy is, where it is and what its weak points are. The real defense is that of the wasp: attack me and I will poison you. All that stuff about planes, submarines and tanks is all well and good in the video, but in the 21st century dangerous situations are solved with viruses and electrons, I guess without the population finding out in most cases. GB was a giant of biological and bacteriological warfare in 1945...

I suppose they have come some way since then.

 

[uk 75]

Those wanting an increase in the size and equipment of the British Army need to address why its performance since World War 2 has been patchy.
While the UK has excellent infantry soldiers the level and type of equipment that made up British Army of the Rhine in the Cold War and then fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was poor even compared with smaller countries like Belgium and Denmark and woeful compared with West Germany in the Cold War.
The Generals and UK Industry together with Politicians and Civil Servants have all contributed to mediocre kit like Abbott SP guns or atrocious ones like Ajax. The ongoing saga of the SA80 rifle sums up the problem.
My solution is a radical one. Europe now has effective land powers in Finland, Poland and Sweden and above all Ukraine. Britain should focus on the niches where we add capabilities to NATO.

 

[Apophenia]

OT, but I'm curious as to why you have rated the Abbot as "medicore kit" uk 75.

 

[kaiserd]

Those wanting an increase in the size and equipment of the British Army need to address why its performance since World War 2 has been patchy.
While the UK has excellent infantry soldiers the level and type of equipment that made up British Army of the Rhine in the Cold War and then fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was poor even compared with smaller countries like Belgium and Denmark and woeful compared with West Germany in the Cold War.
The Generals and UK Industry together with Politicians and Civil Servants have all contributed to mediocre kit like Abbott SP guns or atrocious ones like Ajax. The ongoing saga of the SA80 rifle sums up the problem.
My solution is a radical one. Europe now has effective land powers in Finland, Poland and Sweden and above all Ukraine. Britain should focus on the niches where we add capabilities to NATO.

The UK still needs land forces and the evidence of recent conflicts is that relatively small high quality well equipped highly trained land forces have a disproportionate effectiveness versus larger but lower quality forces. The actual lessons of these conflicts would actually suggest “expedition” ground capabilities (including a significant “heavy” weapons capability - heavy gun/ rocket artillery, MBTs etc.) are actually more not less relevant, including for the UK.

And specifically re: the Ukraine suggesting that the relevant lessons are that the UK needs less not more conventional/ full spectrum ground capability is a bit bizarre.

With respect the view/ perspective that has actually been shaken/ undermined by the recent conflict Ukraine is that the UK should/ could pivot away from its Russia-facing / European commitments and under take some kind of very large scale pivot to / reshaping forces for the Pacific. There are layers on top of layers of flawed assumptions tied up with that view that have wider political contexts that aren’t really under the remit of this website.

To be honest looking at conflicts like Ukraine and somehow coming up with an answer that involves evolving UK forces to less and less suit a potential European conflict and more and more suit an imagined involvement in a Pacific conflict looks like having an overriding desired end-point and intentionally interpreting/ misinterpreting everything else to end up at that desired end-point.
Not actual analysis but confirmation bias writ large.

 

[uk 75]

Er I said at the end niches within NATO and did not mention the Pacific.
I used the Abbot (sorry I misspelt it) as an example of mediocre kit because it only had a 105mm gun when 155mm would have been better but we were stuck with Abbot.
In WW2 where we had no choice but to equip for a Continental War it required large scale adoption of US equipment to provide a decently equipped force. BAOR relied on the US too for equipment like heavy artillery and nuclear weapons.
I would argue thst Ukraine had larger scales of equipment than any NATO member and benefitted from some excellent Soviet era equipment. Poland, Sweden and Finland all have excellent combined arms forces.
If any NATO member should be rearming its Army it is Germany which already had a new Leopard prototype and the best SP gun in NATO.
Where the UK can help NATO is by providing high reaction infantry trained to use helicopters and lightweight anti tank and anti air weapons. We have a force of Apaches and should get a replacement for.Puma. The Royal Marines have long provided a sign of determination for Norway and could also deploy into the Baltic.
We still need s core of armoured and artillery forces in case a prolingued war breaks out involving NATO. These should use equipment of the highest quality which we can buy more of if necessary.

 

[Hood]

I've been reading a few RAF senior staff recollections of of the 1990s recently, their gloomy outlook is more or less since Nott its been a long downhill slope, SDR 98 was a relatively flat patch that offered promised but was soon destroyed by Treasury cutbacks. They also blame the Army for campaigning in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s at the same time and not pushing back against the politicians as both these major commitments were beyond the resources agreed under SDR. They also warn that new fields like cyberwarfare don't actually replace old fields, its tempting to make Space Commands and Cyber Corps but actually they add very little if the frontline units are trimmed too far and when training standards fall.

I used the Abbot (sorry I misspelt it) as an example of mediocre kit because it only had a 105mm gun when 155mm would have been better but we were stuck with Abbot.

Not really, the Royal Artillery brought the M109 alongside Abbot and both entered service in 1965. Around 140 of each were acquired. In 1965 the Army issued the requirement for a new 105mm gun which became the L118 and shared the same ammo as the L13A1. This was to replace the 105mm L7 OTO-Melara pack howitzer, certainly Abbot was a big advance on relying on those L7s too.
The max range of the 155mm M126 and the 105mm L13A1 were much the same, around 15km. The later 105mm Mk.2 ammo increased this to 17.4km but the M109 were also upgraded to A1 and A2 standard with the 155mm M185 which increased ranges to 18.1km. The shell weight of course differed.

 

[uk 75]

Hood I am not convinced that having a 105mm sph (only Belgium used the M108) when everyone else in Northag (GE, NL and later US III Corps) all just used M109 with 155mm was down to anything other than UK jobs and Budget limitations.
Both Germany and UK had to develop their own SPH after the SP70 debacle and again Germany got the more sophisticated weapon. How does AS90 compare with PZH2000?
The saga of Challenger is another example where if UK jobs and budgets were not a factor the M1 or Leo2 would be the UK MBT.
Now we have the Ajax debacle. Warrior was probably as good as and perhaps better in some ways than M2/3 Bradley but was again non NATO (noone else had them).

 

[Foo Fighter]

What we should be doing is repairing our defecne ability, kedeping the money spent in the UK. We COULD have world class kit and UK built but the failure occurs in the big house in London.
Will Power rather than ability is the drawback. Challenger three is a half way house too, we SHOULD be creating a big step to the next level with an export version to create an income to reduce OUR defence costs.

 

[zen]

Those wanting an increase in the size and equipment of the British Army need to address why its performance since World War 2 has been patchy.

Firstly is the size of a force dependent on it's performance in 'minor wars'?
Or is it dependent on the most stressing case that actually justifies it's size and composition?

Secondly....'patchy'?
By what metric is that a conclusion?

While the UK has excellent infantry soldiers the level and type of equipment that made up British Army of the Rhine in the Cold War and then fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was poor even compared with smaller countries like Belgium and Denmark and woeful compared with West Germany in the Cold War.

Is it?

The Generals and UK Industry together with Politicians and Civil Servants have all contributed to mediocre kit like Abbott SP guns or atrocious ones like Ajax. The ongoing saga of the SA80 rifle sums up the problem.

Was Abbot mediocre at the time?

SA80A2 to A3 is if anything an impressive piece of kit. I think you're letting the early rifle colour your perception here.

My solution is a radical one. Europe now has effective land powers in Finland, Poland and Sweden and above all Ukraine. Britain should focus on the niches where we add capabilities to NATO.

Not that far from UK policy to be honest.
But to retain and develop key capabilities, we have to possess the driving need and body of personnel who understand what is needed.
This doesn't come from a lack of involvement nor does it spring forth without the scale of forces that generated it beforehand.

Remember that our military forces are constituted to act for the 'pleasure' of the 'sovereign power of the realm'.
They exist for this purpose, at our expense or they must not exist.

NATO is not the Delian League, and America is not Athens.

 

[zen]

Both Germany and UK had to develop their own SPH after the SP70 debacle and again Germany got the more sophisticated weapon. How does AS90 compare with PZH2000?

AS90 is rugged, and works in arduous conditions.
It's been commented by certain military officers that AS90 is a good system for conscripts and PZH-2000 is better designed for professionals.

Ajax is z debacle primarily because of long known quality issues with a certain Spanish factory, which foolishly UK Gov accepted from GDLS and now has to hand fix every hull in a site in Wales.....

 

[kaiserd]

It’s not about “will power” and it’s not remotely accurate or constructive to blame UK politicians for existing in and having to operate in a reality you don’t appear to particularly like and/ or recognise.
From economic and industrial necessity the UK has to pick and choose what it makes itself, what it makes in partnership with international allies, and what it just buys in from abroad.
Even the US has to some extent live with and make these kind of trade-offs on a case-by-case basis. The UK does so too but clearly with significantly fewer viable “going-it-alone” options actually being available to it.

The Tempest program is a good example.
The UK has decided to invest in maintaining cutting edge military aviation industrial capacity. To make this viable (both economically and politically) they needed overseas partners. Despite skepticism from some (including me on this forum) they appear to have succeeded in generating critical mass (Japan joining along with Italy is absolutely critical in this regard).

The UK can’t do half a dozen Tempest sized military programs and they certainly can’t do them alone hoping to maybe generate some export orders.

Specifically re: their next MBT Challenger III is clearly a compromise but the point is clearly primarily industrial (minimum required to keep what’s left of UK tank-building and related industry and tech alive). There is an argument (referenced by UK 75 above) that the primary potential mistake of this compromise is not about not going for something more ambitious but actually relates to not cutting losses earlier and instead trying to get on board with Franco-German MBT efforts and the future Leopard III.

In any case apart from the small number of Kuwait Challenger IIs it’s a very long time since any non-UK customers actually paid for British MBTs, or even took delivery of new-build British MBTs?
It appears foolish to double down on chasing relative failure in this regard, and it’s hard to see any more exotic expensive-to-develop “clean sheet” UK MBT doing significantly better than a Challenger III in the export market anyway.
Aspects like potential willingness to export to countries/ regimes others may not wish to would likely be more significant factors in this regard anyway.

 

[uk 75]

This is a good discussion and I am grateful to those of you who have come up with alternative views.
I understand the wish to have a decent home grown product for our military.
In an ideal world it ought to be possible.
I am not starry eyed about the United States (Despite the architecture Washington definitely is not Athens!).
But over the last eighty years the United States has been the Arsenal of Democracy.
The M1, M2, M109 and whatever version of the M16 rifle is on offer this week, are a good basis for equipping a Division designef to fight on the Continent. All could have been licence built in the UK.
Much as I admire Leopard 2 and PZH2000 Germany since 1991 has proven to be a less reliable contributor to NATO. Puma and Boxer are more expensive and less reliable rhan Bradley and Striker.
But the nub of my argument is that BAOR was a product of WW2 and the disposition of allied forces on D Day. It competed between then and 1991 for funds with the Nuclear Deterrent, UK Air Defence and Royal Navy General Purpose forces.
I want no British Army of the Vistula as I suspect Generals robbed of Iraq and Afghanistan are hankering after.
The Trident deterrent for all its cost is a unique national capability in a world where little men rattle nuclear sabres.
UK Air Defence needs more aircraft and missile systems to cope with the T160.
The Royal Navy should build a new class of submarine with the US and Australia and replace the T23 and T45 with effective escorts. I am no fan of QE2 and DoE compared with SSNs but I am no Nott or Healey. Now we have them, they are powerful tools for NATO and further afield.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Not just about megafaxctories building thousands of tanks. The development of 3d printing and more modern armour with reactive elemts SHOULD mean it is possible to provide our troops with the best and do it competitively.
We can also develop our technology ability with a view to the future tech requirted to remain competitive.
Cooperation is the golden fleece or the Pestle with the vessel or the brew that is true (Sorry). How many billions have been wasted with cooperation that has turned sour? Basically we need to de politicise defence so that the Labour party meddling with the current carriers and making sure they cannot operate as CATOBAR ships ceases. Setting the number for defence spending regardless of political partly in power would enable the industry to operate on an even footing and PLAN.

 

[kaiserd]

Not just about megafaxctories building thousands of tanks. The development of 3d printing and more modern armour with reactive elemts SHOULD mean it is possible to provide our troops with the best and do it competitively.
We can also develop our technology ability with a view to the future tech requirted to remain competitive.
Cooperation is the golden fleece or the Pestle with the vessel or the brew that is true (Sorry). How many billions have been wasted with cooperation that has turned sour? Basically we need to de politicise defence so that the Labour party meddling with the current carriers and making sure they cannot operate as CATOBAR ships ceases. Setting the number for defence spending regardless of political partly in power would enable the industry to operate on an even footing and PLAN.

Complaining about the supposed politicisation of defence and the supposed meddling of one political party that hasn’t been in power for 13 years, and the supposed need for a settled number for defence spending regardless of political party in power when it has been the same (other) political party that has actually been in power for those 13 years does throw up some questions on the quality of your analysis.

Arguably defence has been reasonably consistently not especially politicised in the UK with both main political parties taking generally very similar positions most of the time on most defence related matters (the deterrent, etc). And arguably the last few years has seen greater not less similarity in defence policy between the 2 main UK policies.

The limited level of “politicisation” that is actually seen appears to relate to one party’s inclination to overpromise but then fail to deliver when pandering to their base, plus the other party having a fluctuating sized minority of members with views on defence well out of alignment with those of the majority of that parties voters and of the views of the majority of the wider electorate.

 

[uk 75]

The discussion of individual political parties in the UK is irrelevant to this thread which is intended to look at options that any party might consider.
I have proposed one set of options and am grateful both for crituque of those optons and for some of the alternatives rhat you have raised.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Not just about megafaxctories building thousands of tanks. The development of 3d printing and more modern armour with reactive elemts SHOULD mean it is possible to provide our troops with the best and do it competitively.
We can also develop our technology ability with a view to the future tech requirted to remain competitive.
Cooperation is the golden fleece or the Pestle with the vessel or the brew that is true (Sorry). How many billions have been wasted with cooperation that has turned sour? Basically we need to de politicise defence so that the Labour party meddling with the current carriers and making sure they cannot operate as CATOBAR ships ceases. Setting the number for defence spending regardless of political partly in power would enable the industry to operate on an even footing and PLAN.

Complaining about the supposed politicisation of defence and the supposed meddling of one political party that hasn’t been in power for 13 years, and the supposed need for a settled number for defence spending regardless of political party in power when it has been the same (other) political party that has actually been in power for those 13 years does throw up some questions on the quality of your analysis.

Arguably defence has been reasonably consistently not especially politicised in the UK with both main political parties taking generally very similar positions most of the time on most defence related matters (the deterrent, etc). And arguably the last few years has seen greater not less similarity in defence policy between the 2 main UK policies.

The limited level of “politicisation” that is actually seen appears to relate to one party’s inclination to overpromise but then fail to deliver when pandering to their base, plus the other party having a fluctuating sized minority of members with views on defence well out of alignment with those of the majority of that parties voters and of the views of the majority of the wider electorate.

Not complaining, an observation. Post WW2 the Labour government turned to a form of industry management contrary to good practice. The tories went and screwed companies together without realising their plan effectively. The fact is that the conduct of these parties in military and military kit fiasco's is an ongoing problem we will never get to deal with effectively,

Time for a rethink.

 

[Hood]

I have reading been a lot of recollections and memoires by RAF Staff officers during the 1990s in the last few weeks. Their conclusion is (more or less) that everything since Nott has been a downhill slide with Labour's 1998 SDR being the only brief patch of levelness (with some genuine tri-service agreement and co-operation) before the Treasury quickly put their boot in and ruined it, cutting manpower and kit needed under the agreed SDR limits and re-starting service rivalries. They also blame the Army for going along with the politicians and campaigning in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time - two major commitments which were beyond what the armed forces were expected to resource.
Treasury meddling didn't help, the C-17 lease for example proved more expensive than buying them outright, there is no real long-term view of value for money.
The RAF top brass who agreed to a pair of 40,000-ton carriers for a few Harriers and amphib support are genuinely mystified how they morphed into 60,000-ton ships but are equally aghast at how the RN has been pruned back to field these two ships. Under SDR it was difficult to find justifications outside of the 'north of the Sahara, west of the Gulf' the UK was meant to focus on. The carriers were for supporting West African operations but the RN had to 'invent' the Baltic mission to justify them under SDR. Today they are Indo-Pacific tools. Tomorrow they might be something else. For me whether they are CATOBAR or not is immaterial - they would still cost billions and the RAF would still have to fly the planes.

Any temporary influx of funding now will only be that, a future review is only bound to cut more manpower and units to try and keep on top of the equipment bill. I don't see any political will to reverse that - if 30 years of Middle East campaigning hasn't created that will then one war we're not actually part of certainly won't.
Manpower will always be an issue, we're not going to go back to 1990s levels of manning, simply not enough people want to serve and even at poor wages offered couldn't be afforded.

As to kit, as I see it the UK will always operate some world-beating kit, they have high standards but it costs a lot and might come in late. Some sub-par kit will be upgraded over time and becoming cutting-edge (usually a couple of years before its retired). Some kit will be crap, foisted by poor management and technical skills and the inability to cancel.
But there will never be enough of it. After smashing Iraq so easily in 1990 at surprising low losses and decades of relying on airpower and relatively low losses of manpower and kit in insurgency operations everybody thought the charnel house battlefields of the World Wars were history. They resourced for minor operations or medium-intensity 6-month long wars. Nothing like Ukraine was envisioned and today the British armed forces at those rates of attrition might only last a couple of weeks. And no politician is going to rebuild to 1980s levels of equipment stocks and unit size.

 

[uk 75]

The 1998 was fatally flawed by the willingness of the government of the day to accept all three services' pet projects based on a near term war in Iraq and a further away "resurgent Russia".
The RAF got not just Typhoon but a Tornado replacement.
The RN got its carriers ( operations in Yugoslavia were used as well to justify carriers despite most aircraft flying from Italy)
The Army got to keep an Armoured Division and a Mechanised Division plus Apaches
It was on a par with the fantasy programme of the early 1960s (TSR2, CVA01, etc
The Treasury headed by Gordon Brown was spoiled for choice for things to prune. But Cameron and Osborne really tried too. The carriers survived even George.

 

[zen]

Should this really descend into a anti-carrier rant?

1998 was indeed an illusion. Everyone thought they were getting a balanced force and a stable future.
But like almost everything associated with that administration, the reality was more a 'boiling frog' in which we all were frogs being gently placed into the pot.
Only now do we really feel the water getting hot.....

It's easy to cast blame on events like 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq.
But all through this period, the cutting continued and illusions mattered more than reality.
So I put it to you, this degeneration of our capabilities and capacity was almost inevitable.
You could have cut the carriers and stayed home, and still we'd be not far from here.

But the basis of this is ending and either we embrace that, or revert to nothing but a cow to be milked for the benefit of others. Which some seem to think a good thing.
They are wrong.

 

[uk 75]

1998 was a missed opportunity to match our armed forces to our post Cold War requirements.
It was not just the aircraft carriers but the whole menu of military wants that were incorporated in it.
To put it bluntly you can either do a few essential things well or end up trying to do too many things badly.
Sandys, Healey and Nott were willing to face up to this reality. But their choices were not always the right ones.
The Falklands crisis is always used to justify opposing Nott focussing on assets in the North Atlantic. I have always disagreed. Intelligent and timely deployment of our nuclear submarines would have deterred the invasion and even after an invasion would have rendered Argentine control of the seas impossible.

 

[uk 75]

The RAF has ended up the winner in the post 1998 cuts. Typhoon has been turned from a simple air defence aircraft into a capable replacement for Tornado. The F35 is expensive but essential to maintain air superiority.
The Royal Navy has paid a high price for its two carriers. Compare the impressive SSN force we built up from 1965 to 1991 with the delays and problems getting barely more than a handful of Astutes. One positive result has been the use of low end escort ships for policing and other peacetime duties instead of top flight missile ships. The River class have been good value.
Then we come to the Army. The existence of an Armoured Division was predicated on the danger of a new war in Iraq. It was no accident that British Generals were desperate to have a role in 2003.
With Iraq and Afghanistan consigned to history the Army sees Ukraine as a chance to get 1 Armoured Division back in business.
Not this time, I argue.

 

[zen]

No Typhoon was always the Jaguar/Lightning successor.

RAF took the hit(s) of the loss of a Tornado successor and never had a Phantom successor.

I gave dire warnings on the whole JSF issue over 23 years ago and in essence Tempest to GCAP proves my then point and likely will cost us more than was 'saved'

The SSN 'holiday' represents a major 'saving' and I put it to you all that the reconstitution of that capacity and capability cost more than was saved despite inflation.
The Batch II Type 23s were also cut and it's highly likely they would've fixed certain issues and left open an alternative to the Horizon effort.

Rivers were accidental successes, ultimately they be a sop to BAE Systems and the 'reward' for such largess has been the reduction of Frigate numbers. Only by the instrument of Type 31 has this been reversed...hopefully.

Thankfully we haven't yet blundered with putting a River were we needed a Frigate.

As to the carriers, they like the Frigates went through the most exhaustive processes and deliver the greatest flexibility possible for the minimum cost.

On these naval matters I generally put it to you that blaming the carrier effort is another falsehood. The 1997 to 2010 governments were always going to run down the RN and the carriers are just a convenient excuse.

I'll go further.
The UK has sufficient economic size and had sufficient industrial mass coupled with sufficient population to sustain a substantial military capability and industry.

But the management and that encompasses the political, have other priorities than good management. Despite that being the presentation to the population.

But that has been the general trend across a wide swathe of things.

I agree however that we don't need to sustain an Army of the Baltic or Vistula.
That's why we're entering a ever closer defence relationship with Poland.