We have been running the FDR series for a while now and I think there has been some great debate and sensible ideas, plus one or two hair brained schemes just for the hell of it (sorry) but the real thing is approaching and whilst we all try to make a case for a slight increase in funding AND better spending we all know what is coming.
Whatever anyone says the Defence and Security Review will be about money, of course it will be camouflaged with all manner of strategic justification, capability led arguments and visions of the future but that will not alter the fundamental and unavoidable fact that defence will be hit with a budget reduction.
There will be a political element as well, so don’t expect any reductions in anything to do with ‘our brave boys’ TM in Afghanistan and there will likely be a strong commitment to iconic items like armoured vehicles, helicopters, UAS, injury compensation and housing. Former members of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition made some pretty damning remarks about the previous governments commitment to for example, the Support Helicopter fleet so have to avoid being hoisted by their own petard on those high profile issues.
Politicians invariably fail to take difficult and bold decisions so whilst the RUSI options may serve to crystalise thinking, none of their options will be explicitly committed to, expect a fudge.
They might be making noise about contracts like the FSTA PFI but the alternative is a large capital investment so however ludicrous the FSTA PFI is (make no mistake, it is as mad as a box of frogs) there is no low cost alternative.
I thought a prediction post might be interesting, so here is my take on the likely Defence and Security Review…
Air: Typhoon T3 options not taken (no capability improvement), F35 significantly reduced, FSTA retained, additional Chinooks ordered, E3 Sentry fleet reduced, accelerated withdrawal of Harrier and Tornado, more UAS and more contractor outsourcing
Land: FRES delayed, Challenger 2 regiments into whole fleet management, AS90 regiments withdrawn, big hit on Royal Signals, RLC and REME. More outsourcing of maintenance, logistics and communications capabilities, ceremonial remain at current levels, TA seriously reduced, training cut, Warrior capability improvement deferred, Rapier withdrawn
Sea: Trident submarine replacement confirmed, Type 26 design and evaluation extended, 2 CVF’s confirmed but second will replace Ocean, MCM and survey fleet withdrawn, Type 45 pegged at 6, 7th Astute deferred, MARS will buy some second hand tankers
Other: Agencies sold, increase in welfare budget with some headline grabbing initiatives, yet more staff movement from London to Bristol, reduction in research spend, reduction on training and spares holdings
Inevitably defence and other government departments will suffer cut-backs in the governments’ spending review. What hasn’t been said, but makes a great deal of difference, is whether the cut-backs are a temporary measure or whether the reduced level of spending will become the new permanent level of funding.
There is no doubt that the governments stated position that the savings required are to pay off the deficit is a genuinely held and necessary measure, but with that logic it is implied that after the deficit reduction is achieved there can be a return to more ‘normal’ levels of funding. However, no one has said this explicitly.
Politicians being what they are, if in a few years time when the deficit is paid off, if there is an acceptance of the lower level of funding, there will be no reason to expect it to increase. Indeed the spending may then go elsewhere to where political pressure makes the most demand for it.
It would be very useful if someone were to pursue this prior to the FDR so that politicians, who also say they do not wish to preside over national decline, go on record as undertaking, at least in respect of defence, that the cut-backs will only be temporary.
It is highly likely that the FDR cost cutting exercise will be falsely dressed up in terms of a warped strategic justification, which will equally suggest that if the expenditure isn’t required now then it will not be required later either. But there is just a chance that a bargain might be struck for defence to accept a period of meaningful restraint in procurement, say, for three or four years, in return for the FDR building back the capability once Treasury has received their due.
Suddenly the previous governments approach of ‘managed’ capability gaps eg Nimrod, don’t look so bad.
can’t see the RLC,REME being hit unless there is a cut in frontline troop numbers. the profile of these 2 corps has increased greatly due to the current ops. the REME are flat out at the moment, i really hope they aren’t culled, did it in the 90′s and it didn’t work, speaking from experience!!
Paul, I was thinking that the REME and RLC would be faced with increasing contractorisation and availability contracts, hence a decrease in numbers
certainly I am of the opinion that the natural conflicts arising from coalition government will increase the chance of a fudge.
what i don’t understand is how they think they will get away with it, given that the current level of funding probably cannot adequately fun even three of the four strategic capabilities possessed by the Armed Forces.
one has to go, right now, and probably a second if any serious defence cuts are made, but if they opt for a fudge it may well bleed all of the capabilities beyond the point where they remain strategic.
a solid majority for labour or conservative either way might well have produced a better outcome for Defence than this coalition if it really is a fudge that emerges from the FDR.
I think you are mad, almost everything you’ve proposed is unealistic
Air: T3B not taken means big penties, F35 can’t be cut as the roposed purchase is just enough to fill both carriers in an emergency, Harrier and Tornado F3 are being withdrawn as fast as possible, GR4 will be the current CAS workhorse until they life expire. E3 fleet has no need for cuts, though the number operational at any one time may drop. FSTA being binned and the aircraft bought would actually make a saving so why would they keep it?
Land: FRES will not be delayed, it will be binned and a new procurement strategy created for land vehicles, TA can’t be reduced anymore than it already has been, AS90 is safe (though 105 light might go) Warrior enhancement will go ahead. Rapier is going soon anyway.
Sea: Trident isn’t on the table, T26 eval and design is already as long as it can be, T45 already pegged at 6, Astute production must continue to maintain skills for V class replacement, A carrier cannot replace ocean because we are only getting 2 with a requirement for a strike carrier available at all times, to replace ocean we would need 3, not to mention Ocean will still be in service after PoW takes to the water.
Grey, just for clarity, these are not my proposals, just a cynical jaundiced view at what will happen!
T3B has already been set but it will just be the same as the last Tranche 2, i.e. no e-scan radar, conformal tanks, etc etc
F35, I still maintain we will actually end up with less than 40, rotated through the carriers and ground ops. CVF with F35 will be a rare sight
E3 is not being used very much so expect a reduction and maybe some sharing with NATO
FSTA as mad is it is would be more expensive IN THE SHORT TERM to replace with another option
AS90, can’t see all of them staying, expect them to go into fleet management
Do you really think with with 2 65k tonne CVF’s we are getting a Ocean replacement?
TA, seriously, expect big changes, more generalists, less formed units and corps, just a pool of IR’s, as it actually is now
We can debate forever about what we think should happen, in fact that is what our FDR series is about but past experience of defence reviews teaches us to be pessimistic
i think past experience might be a poor indicator this time around, simply because there is no room for fudge anymore, if the cross party commitment to the green paper requirement for world influence is adhered to then some capabilities are going to get the chop, root and branch depending on whether government opts for a maritime or continental strategy.
oddly enough, that latest FDR paper says many of the same things I have been saying for some time, and Fox and Hague between them may indeed have the balls for real change………… whether we like the result or not.
it was found that contractors won’t go near a war zone unless you offer a huge wad of cash, which createda 250 mile loggy chain in iraq in 2003, more importantly, it also came to light there was a “skill fade” kicking in as all the landies and stuff went off for repairs in the LAD at my unit none of the class 2 VM’s had done a gearbox change out of training as it was done under contract to be done at the local L/R garage!!!
In reality there will be cuts in support arms but not dramatic, brown letters will come into force
Less than 40 F35, not possible I’m afraid, with current structuring, standard operational conversion and operational evaluation squadrons require 28 aircraft, so you’d be left with 1 sq of 12 aircraft and no rotational reserves at all. The current multi year procurement plan is for 6 squadrons of 12, enough to put 36 on each carrier in an all up emergency, plus opcon, opeval, in service reserve and rotational reserve, the numbers shake out to 72+24+4+6 with currently unknown rotational reserve component (thought to be 24 approx) meaning an all up buy of 130 is the minimum we will do. This does not however mean that timescales will not be stretched.
Remaining AS90 will stay because the force has already been cut down in the past few years, the move is towards a single arty calibre, which means it’s light gun under threat.
T3B has NOT been set, T3A hasn’t even been set yet, and it’s the RAF who are pushing for Swashplate AESA to be included.
And yes, ocean will be replaced, their is a standing requirement for 2 ships, and they wll happen, mostly beacuse the space is available to build in, frankly RN procurement is a shambles, a 66 hull fleet is perfectly feasable and fundable, without increasing crewing requirements and as such should be what we are aiming for. Remember we are in a period of total naval reprocurement which will last for decades, the problems of today will not bring cuts to the future, at least not yet.
From the noises from local MP’s in Portsmouth to those on the Clyde, it seems that both carriers will go ahead. My money would be on a delay in purchasing F35 until late in this decade or possibly the next and running on a minimalist Harrier group dragging out airframe lifetime as long as possible.
You can’t really say ‘cut’ F35 numbers as most are being procured after 2023 anyway when no-one will know the financial position of the country. Difficult to see what can be culled from the Navy without doing real damage? If you’re going to cut frigates/destroyers then why bother with CVF? I see no room for large scale cuts for the navy.
I’ve seen conflicting reports about Tranche 3b, the Libs in opposition were adamant that savings could be made even with a penalty yet Ainsworth/Davies rubbished this saying the UK does not have to take up the last tranche. I think whatever, these are a cert to either be cut or sold on.
My bet is on the biggest savings being from the Army. I don’t know how it’ll play politically but I think we’ll see a reduction in troop numbers, and a cull of tanks & heavy artillery. Fox in the past has said its his intention to bring our troops back from Germany.
I think, or perhaps I hope that the UK armed forces comes out of the defence review as a USMC styled force with expeditionary capability and a high tech highly agile & mobile army.
Though is anyone really going to bet against a complete fudge which leaves all 3 services with reduced capability?
Grey, all that is pre-financial crisis thinking and requirement.
Frankly, i’d take 36 F35 right now for the FAA. We are only going to have one carrier used as the strike carrier at any one time and its more than likely in peacetime to be carrying a mix of 12 F35 and various Helicopters.
I think the RAF will be lucky if they ever see an F35.
I would be delighted to come out of this looking as good as the USMC, if you take into account the chunk of the USN which acts as their taxi service they make our military look rather undercooked, 20 fast jest squadrons, Lots of helicopters, lots of Armour, frankly other than strategic assets (recon, subs, escorts etc) we could do far worse as a role model.
Paul, I am not saying contractorisation is a good idea, the closer to the bone you cut you lose flexibility.
Grey, your assumption might be based on a sound rationale, when I looked at Typhoon last I couldnt see how anything less than 220 odd airframes could create a balanced sensible fleet with a decent airframe rotation ratio so that we can actually provide QRA North, QRA South and QRA Falklands plus some measure of expeditionary capability as a Jag replacement and possible CAS platform. The problem is the decisions won’t be based on rational assumptions. As for AS90, I am glad you are so confident but are you really thinking that the RA is ever actually going to get hold of an M777 and replace the Light Gun. At a push, I might even agree that 105mm might get a bit of chopping as well. GMLRS and UAS are what the RA is clinging on for. A 66 hull fleet, it might be doable but come on, even in your wildest dreams do think the RN is going to get there in any sensible time period. Oceans replacement is CVF, however crap an idea that is, the RN has even stated that CVF can act as an LPH. I know some of these are some distance in the future but so is the so called black hole, its spread out over the next decade
66 hulls was a prediction spread out until 2035, which I estimate to be the true out of service date of the albion class (and as such the start of the next procurement cycle) was as follows
2x CVF
2x commando carrier
2x Amphibious assault ships
12x Type 45
12x FSC C1
18x FSC C2
18x FSC C3 (large OPV)
10 hulls are already built or in build, I think the rest should be feasable over the next 25 years.
232 eurofighters was always going to be pushing it for only 7 squadrons, OCU, OE and the falklands flight, the final number was set less by need and more by desire for workshare, we will however take T3B, though we will almost certainly get rid of all early single seaters.
As for M777, that is a question for a post Afghan pullout armed forces, I do think it will happen, a move to a single large gun form (155mm, 39cal) makes long term sense, but since when has that made any difference. The fact remains that with the advent of PG artillary, cost savings can be made by replacing CAS with overlapping fields of 3 format arty fire (GMLRS, 155mm, and 81mm mortar) as well as fireshadow.
It isn’t expensive to outfit a military, it is only expensive to get a government to do it.
With FRES looking just like Warrior and CVR(T) being put back in production, I think its about time a few Brigadiers and Generals in Whitehall were replaced. It’s clear these guys have vested interests and cap badges that are more important than providing a sensible balanced force.
After reading the post and the comments I agree with Richard the chances are the cuts will be permanent rather than temporary as who exactly supports a strong military these days? Ideally I would like to see is a publically announced binding agreement between government departments and the bean counters for fixed spending cuts over 3-4 years. The idea being to try and give some security to departments like the MoD which are not classed as sacred cows with legions of supporters.
As for what would be cut for a kick off how much would full withdrawal from Afghanistan save considering most of it is supposed to be funded from the core defence budget and not from the treasury. The defence budget could then be reduced or cut by that amount and held there for a number of years which would add up further as any treasury contribution would also be cut. Yes I know politics is a bloody great roadblock but the public or at least a majority of folk might support the decision to withdraw. Going further there are as noted in the comments loads of various ways to cut spending either in the equipment program or in manpower on the civilian side which the Tories have already said they would cut. Going further but possibly politically sensitive depending on where and to whom is cuts to uniformed personnel numbers beyond cutting down on Generals, Admirals and other high rankers.
“It isn’t expensive to outfit a military, it is only expensive to get a government to do it.” So true
I agree with euan,in that I would happily take what is hopefully short term cuts in defence spending in return for stable funding for the next few years until the next SDR in 4-5yrs. Short term cost cutting leaves little option but to increase timelines/cost and decrease numbers if you want to maintain capability – not very efficient.
On kit, I suspect the RAF will fight hard for a full tranche 3 buy even if it costs them T1 and T2 airframes. I disagree on arty, I actually think the 105mm will stay on especially if UK moves onto an expeditionary footprint, the whole package is just more mobile. I can see AS90 and a large part of the heavy armour going into storage as a result of the SDR. I also agree that personnel both mil & civ are definitely going to take the biggest hit this time around.
I’ve mentioned this before: go purple, rationalise and unify the command strucutre and base infrastructure, above all make a proper decision over what you want the armed forces to do and make a reasonable attempt to fund it please.
With great respect to everyone that contributes to these blogs. I’ve been studying the military all my life, and at this point in time there seems to be no need for 5th generation fighters and these dazzling super expensive aircraft and defence systems which are budget breakers. It seems to me that the less sophisticated the better, more than anything, what you guys need is gound support aircraft, better infantry equipment and support systems, and support helicopters etc. which will support your troops on the ground.
Defence systems shouldn’t be made any more expensive than they’re actually worth or their relevancy to the modern world and the current defence environment. This is an Arm’s Industry fantasy about trying to make money and delivering systems that we don’t need in this day and age.
What and who are our real enemies and do we need to spend this kind of money on high tech systems to deal with them? Show me a legitimate and compelling threat to the west, that forces us to spend these billions of pounds and dollars on high tech weapons systems. A lot of this stuff is total BS of the highest order. Surely all of us have the intelligence to realise what is actually neccessary for dealing with the threats that exist right now and in the forseable future, not to live in some unrealistic world facing unrealistic threats which only actually benefit the arms manufacturers.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a passifist, I’m actually a very strong believer in a strong military, but it’s strength has to be taylored towards meeting the relevant threats that we face. Let’s not simply waste money on systems which we don’t need. If British troop need more support and better equipment let’s supply them what they need.
Let’s find the best and most efficient way of helping them and saving their lives, surely that’s what’s most important. Why buy an extra 20 or 40 or 60 F-35s or Eurofighters if they aren’t actually needed or not worth the money you pay for them. Let’s try to find out what we actually need and then try and spend our money wisely, and do what’s best for our armed forces, sure your brave men and women deserve at least that.
I’m an Australian who’s on your side and has a great love for the west and our style of life. With due respect to all of you, and I know that most of you are very intelligent people. I’d truly like to get your feedback, I appreciate and respect your views. God bless the west and it’s military forces.
In the disagreement between admin and Grey, some valid points were made on either side. I rather fear that admin’s predictions will turn out to be near the truth but accept Grey’s arguments that some of the cuts appear unrealistic.
For instance, I hardly think it likely that all the AS90 regiments will be withdrawn. Germany has just announced that it will send a number of its PzH 2000s to Afghanistan! The SP155mm has a role and you just can’t train crews to man stored-up vehicles in a short space of time. On the other hand, I cannot possible agree with the sugggestion that the 105 Light Gun might be withdrawn. Unless we get the M777, that will be our only piece of really mobile artillery gone.
On another note, Rapier FSC is still a very potent AA missile. It has a greater range and higher ceiling than HVM and is not due out of service until 2020. It has a very valuable role, for instance, in defending the Falklands and I think at least one battery of gunners is down there. I can’t imagine the island being adequately defended against fast jets by a couple of blokes with shoulder-launched Starstreak!
Lastly, I thought that the MOD rationale behind withdrawing the Sea Harriers six years early was that it would be near-term sacrifice in order to gain long-term improvements. Now, with the talk of the F35 by being cut severely, it would seem a case of bang goes that bright theory!