Another day brings another Think Tank report on the future of the UK armed forces.
Oxford Research Group (ORG) is an independent non-governmental organisation and registered charity, which works together with others to promote a more sustainable approach to security for the UK and the world.
The conclusions are;
Britain is beginning to embrace the idea of looking at international security in a manner that goes beyond a traditional defence review, with the National Security Strategy, the Green Papers and the new National Security Council being evidence of this. In the face of current financial constraints and the carrier/Trident issue, though, there is every sign that the forthcoming defence review will be very limited in its remit, and therefore fundamentally inadequate.
Instead:
- The review should be inter-departmental and overseen at Cabinet Office level.
- It should address the issue of defence procurement.
- It should be wide-ranging and able to develop integrated policy on broadly-based global security issues, such as climate change, economic marginalisation and conflict-prevention.
- It will not be able to do this effectively, unless the carrier/F-35 programme is cancelled and replaced with a smaller and much more versatile option, and the Trident force and its replacement are substantially scaled down.
- Each constrains an effective and far-sighted review – together they make a genuine review well-nigh impossible.
Have a read here
read it; ‘kin tree huggers!!!
They may be tree-huggers but it doesn’t make them entirely wrong.
Given the state of the UK’s finances a big cut in defence spending is inevitable and given the MoDs track record to date, and the poor quality of public debate on defence, I can’t see a good outcome. If 10-20% of the defence budget is chopped, and Trident, F-35 carriers etc are ring-fenced, the whole cuts will fall on the remainder. What kind of forces will we have left?
We will need to cancel some big projects outright and re-think what we roles we really need to perform, trimming and delaying programs will not be enough.
I agree that the like-for-like Trident replacement should go, but not just for financial reasons, it’s not such a good deterrent any more. Recent comments from the USA cast doubts on Trident long-term anyway; Secretary Gates will not contemplate the cost of the US future SSBNs.
As for the carriers, I disagree with ORG on this, simply because I think it’s too late. About £1.5bn has already been spent on these ships. Maybe we should have built something smaller or different but we have had a decade to debate this and to wait until they are being built before talking about it is a bit ridiculous. There is an undeniable need for some kind of sea-based air-power, as ORG implies. If we wrote off the money spent to date and bought something cheaper and inferior the final bill would, I suspect be much the same anyway. The 27,000-tonne Cavour cost €1.4bn and Australia’s two new ships, also 27,000 tonnes, will cost A$3bn. Smaller is not cheap.
What we really need to get out of is the F-35. If you have been following the story it is quite worrying. Apart from when will it be available, and at what cost, the aircraft has real problems with heat, both the jet-blast on the flight-deck and internal heat. F-35B in particular is a very ambitious project and not guaranteed to be technically successful at any price. It would really help financially if we could ‘navalize’ the Typhoon and go for STOBAL carriers, but I suspect there are few in the military who would view this with enthusiasm.
The 3rd project to dump, if not too late legally, is the £13-bn PFI project for new RAF tankers. £13bn for 14 aircraft, are they stark staring mad? If 2nd hand airliners have been good enough for the last 25 years, then why not for the next?
More than anything else there needs to be a culture change in the Armed Forces and MoD, we cannot go pursuing exquisite, perfect but hideously expensive weapons platforms regardless of cost. We must maintain a certain minimum numbers as well. ‘Best’ is the enemy of ‘good enough’.
well i would’ve said all that but i hate typing!!! correct about the CVF. if anything parade them around the world countries out there are looking for non nuclear carriers, let’s fly the flag.
My opinion on aircraft for the CVF has been swayed by many good points on this site, it looks like it’s too much work/cost to navalise the typhoon (too much with BAe involved, never)! Anyhow i agree with most others on here bin F35 go with the rafale.
As for the treehugger comment puting a whole paragraph in a defence review about how purchases will effect climate change, i nearly wet my organic, freerange natural fibres underpants!
Just skimmed through the ORG paper. My fist thoughts were that to link the F35 with that of the Typhoon (As a cold war relic) is nonsense. The Typhoon was not adapted it was designed from the outset to be a swing-role fighter. If they don’t know that it makes me think they don’t know much at all!!!
On navalising the Typhoon, all I can say is that if the Russians can navalise the Su-27 and Mig-29, and the Swedes the Gripen (they are going for the Brazilian Navy contract) why so difficult to navalise the Typhoon? I can understand the RN, RAF and BAE not wanting to but that’s another matter. We should seriously consider the STOBAL option as well. The two QEII class cannot(easily)be fitted with steam catapults, and electromagnetic ones (the US EMALS) may or may not be ready. Plus it would be a pity to buy a Typhoon-like aircraft from France when we have more than enough Typhoons on order already. I would ahve thought that navalising the Typhoon for STOBAL operations might be easier than for CATOBAR as they do not have to stand up to the sress of catapult launches. I am no authority on this though, just speculating.
Agree with the points here about F-35, really we sgould hace been developing Sea Harrier (HSA/NAe Kingston had a range of outright Fighter designs from the 1970′s through to the Early 1990′s). But starting again from scrathc is a no-no now. I can’t see any RN type going for Rafale, so that leaves sea-gripen (BAe) or Mig-29. So what is sooo difficult about buying Mig-29. Could we get the Sout Africans/Indians/Isrealis (at a push) to install western avionics – all these countries have experience, we could even buy the airframes from the Indians as they make Mig-29′s under licence (or did I dream that?). Then redevelop the air intakes and fit western engines for an MLU mark 2 model!
@Paul G.
I think the comments about global warming are to do with the groups perception for the likely *causes* of future conflicts, not the effect on the environment of having bulking great war machines lumbering about.
Agruably energy security is already a casus belli, witness the “hard diplomacy” the CIS is using against Georgia and Ukraine with gas supplies, or the conspiracy theories regarding the causes for the second Gulf War. And of course one of the best places for mass solar energy generation, Africa, has the least stable governments. Regime Change in the “Dark Continent” anyone?
Regarding my previous post, apologies for the atrocious penmanship, but I was posting in a hurry. I also forgot to put my ha’penneth worth in on Trident. As a “practising Liberal-Democrat”, I have to admit the debate here on Trident has been refreshing and challenged my pre-conceived notions.
I now agree that SLBM carrying subs are the “most credible” and most effective deterrent available to us for use against a westernised nuclear power. But how may of those are we likely to face in the next 15 years? Of course, after that – we’ll be having argument with CIS about dwindling gas supplies (we are at about the point of peak-oil now, especially if we abandon deep sea drilling a la BP in the Gulf of Mexico), so maybe a face-off with an agressive westernised nuclear power *will* be on the cards between 15-30 years hence?
Dave, no need for apologies. You won’t find any grammar nazis here!