A strategic defence and security review is on the horizon; that much is certain.
Predicting its content is impossible but one theme that is likely to emerge is that the three services have to prepare for more of the types of conflict we are engaged in now.
The argument that future conflict will be characterised by sustained medium scale counter insurgency type operations is a persuasive one. With increasing globalisation and greater interdependence of states it is argued that the traditional ‘heavy metal’ interstate conflict will be much less likely so fast jets, tanks and destroyers should have a lesser call on finite resources than for example, infantry or engineers.
The US is already starting down this path.
The UK has traditionally sought to maintain a balanced force but in the face of a decade of austerity, defence inflation and likely conflicts this is looking increasingly difficult.
It is fair to say that no one can accurately predict the future, no one predicted the extent of any of the recent conflicts and the range of forces employed went from small scale special forces to an all arms armoured division so we must still retain some capability at the top end. However, Afghanistan has exposed the poor state of equipment and ability to sustain a medium campaign so we must take some very tough decisions because one simply cannot have it all, despite the defence manufacturers telling us so.
Arguments about defence spending needing a greater percentage of GDP are fair enough but we must assume that any increase will be short lived so broadly speaking the UK defence budget will be between 2.5 to 3% of GDP for the forseable future. The Conservatives have not ring fenced the Defence budget (like the NHS and Overseas Aid) and given they are likely to form the next Government we must assume this broad percentage will remain.
The defence budget needs to give greater priority to personnel, logistics, training and maintenance which have been slashed in order to maintain capital spending.
I also support integrating Defence with the wider ‘security and foreign affairs budgets.
In summary, the future armed forces will need to be reshaped to support enduring medium scale operations but with the ability to flex up or down in both numeric and capability terms for short periods.
Over the next few weeks I want to explore this as an issue so if anyone wants to contribute, use the contact page and get in touch or leave a comment.
The themes are going to be;
* Future Threats and Responses
* Reshaping the RAF
* Reshaping the Royal Navy
* Reshaping the Army
* Common Capabilities
* Reserve Forces
* Defence Business

3 Comments
Fascinating idea, looking forward to the discussion. Would you rate these as different topics, or do you think we should integrate these under your current headings:
1. The role of NATO
2. The UK position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council
3. The role of integrated European foreign policy and integrated European defence policy in shaping the UK’s future forces ?
4. In the view of budgets never being enough to do everything, where should our strategic ‘value add’ be ? What should we concentrate on, so that we would provide a specialist capability within a NATO / coalition operation that would bring a unique and/or highly valuable contribution to an alliance ?
Hi jed, would you mind if i rolled your suggestions of NATO, EU and UN into the threats and responses section?
I like the idea of creating a set of niche capabilities that we do extremely well that would then place us in an excellent position in any coalition, a real position of power as opposed to what is likely to be a position of being a mini me USA having the full spectrum of capabilities in width but no depth.
I have often thought we are becoming the military equivelent of ‘fur coat and no knickers’ and the scale of UOR’s for Iraq and Afghanistan tends to confirm this.
This theme will be distributed across the ‘reshaping’ elements of the posts
Thanks
No worries, sorry for delay in responding – work getting the way of non-work !