Are we seriously considering getting rid of infantry battalions, cutting back on T3 and putting the CVF in doubt when we have the Red Arrows, 20 odd military bands and lots of ceremonial duties to attend to.
Would you trade the Red Arrows or lots of ceremonial duties for…
Fill in the blanks.
Personally, I think the very first thing to go would be display, bands and ceremonial
Bandsmen have a war role – they are battlefield medics.
If you have a display team, your providing good airmanship practice for a bunch of pilots.
How much does Ceremonials troops (the Guards, Household Cavalry etc) bring into the country via the tourism economy ?
Have I had to, I would get rid of the Red Sparrows !
If Trooping the Colour brings in tourism to London, then let the Mayor pay for them.
The changing nature of battlefield medicine is also restricting the role of bandsmen doubling up as stretcher bearers.
Difficult choices as they say
Would be sad to see ceremonial duties gone (seems we loose things one by one, like the Gun Run at the Royal Tournament).
How much do these actually costs ? Is it the same as keeping troops in Germany to protect us from the mass invasion from the USSR – OK I kid, but there are savings to be made that can ensure we do not have to cut the military. A lot of your suggestions on here, better MoD procurement and management. A fixed budget that people have to actually work within alone would be a good start.
Have you watched changing of the guard recently? If not, i thoroughly recommend doing so. You’ll observe literally thousands of tourists enjoying every moment. When foreign visitors come to London, they want to see all the traditional icons of Britain. Guards bands may be somewhat cliched to us, but the people witnessing them for the first time only marvel at the musical spectacle they provide. These same visitors contribute billions of overseas dollars to our national coffers. At a time when we need as much foreign money flowing into Britain as possible, we would be very foolish to get rid of the very things foreign visitors have come to see. So, I think bands and ceremonial aspects of the military are the LAST thing we should cut. The pomp and circumstance of British military pageantry are not merely an important part of our national culture, they are something that affect the morale of the individual units to which they belong. Our bands are an inherent part of the regimental system. Take away the bands, and you erode the foundation of a world-class institution.
In fact, I’ll go one step further. I totally discount the theory that we need any kind of defence cuts at all. The forces were savagely cut last time around, once again reducing manpower and front line offensive capability. However, our commitments have only increased since then. We’re also heavily involved in a war that could very easily expand in scope should Afghanistan’s neighbours see an opportunity to expand their own spheres of interest.
More fundamentally, the current defence budget of around £44.6 billion is considerably less than the £240 billion plus figure we’re spending on state handouts, pensions and health. The million plus unemployed people who receive free handouts cost the taxpayer much more than all three services combined. We spent £30 billion bailing out Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, in addition to the £85 billion we spent recapitalizing the rest of the banking sector. Meanwhile, Afghanistan costs us £6 billion per annum. The fastest way to cut the defence budget is to pack up and leave. Given the wider geo-political implications of abandoning this commitment, we need to think very carefully before doing so. There may be other less critical ways to reduce expenditure.
If we have to save money on defence, then I would question whether we still need an Army in Germany at all. I think this is definitely a hangover from the cold war and represents a useful means of reducing the budget to maintain overseas bases. Of course, posting units abroad to places like Belize, may actually be cheaper than basing them in the UK.
When we look back to the recent effect of the ash cloud on UK air travel, it makes you realise that we as an island nation are totally dependent on sea and air travel assets to keep us supplied. So we certainly cannot cut the Navy or Air Force ahead of the Army. Liam fox’s first pronouncement as Defence Secretary was to say that the first duty of any elected government is to protect the people it serves. I sincerely hope this belief is translated into a defence policy that serves the national interest.
Get rid of the horses! Also, if they need pomp and ceremony in the capital why can’t it be the preserve of a TA or Yeomanry unit? Ex-squaddies paid on a part time basis, all paid for by the Mayor. This would free up the regulars to concentrate on real soldiering.
That’s my two pennies worth.
The Gun Run and Royal Tournament are being reintroduced, Fiale, and will not fall under the MoD’s responsibility. Though we loose things we do get them back as well.
I must admit, I watched some sort of parade over the weekend and thought, wtf?
It’s difficult to say what to cut until the government sets out what it wants the armed forces to do.
Tory foreign policy is that Britain should continue to have a role in the world, so this suggests we’ll need power projection. It’s also difficult to see a government within the next decade committing to another ground war like Afghanistan considering the political fallout.
Perhaps easier to say what we’ll need if we follow that scenario.
CVF, Amphibs, F35B – yes, all the things the press love to tell us are under scrutiny for cutting.
admin,
I must confess that I raised not one but two metaphorical eyebrows when I read your suggestion about scrapping ceremonial and the bands. The comment was even more surprising as you usually talk undiluted good sense.
I think that you should never forget the importance of national symbolism. One of the first things that Vaclav Havel did when he assumed power in Czechoslovakia was to restore national emblems to prominence. Such emblems are deeply engrained in the psyche of a nation. They become representative symbols worthy of veneration. Churchill realized that truth brilliantly well in the Second World War (remember the ravens at the Tower and many other examples?)
The Trooping of the Colour is deeply embedded in our nation’s consciousness. The British Army officer assisting the commentator said in his opening remarks, “This is an iconic, status of the nation kind of event” (or words to that effect) and his statement was so true. The morale of the British people, let alone that of the armed forces themselves, would be very badly affected by its removal. And anyway, how much would be saved by scrapping such ceremonial? Probably less that the cost of one Typhoon (£60 million, at the latest estimate). Furthermore, if the Guards regiments can manage to put on such a brilliant display after switching roles from war-fighting, wherein lies the problem? One battalion had only five weeks in which to prepare after returning from Afghanistan!
No, I find myself agreeing with everything that Nicholas said. I too discount the theory that we need any defence cuts. Yes, we do need savage cuts to reduce the overall deficit but the armed forces suffered excessively harsh cuts last time round and this must not happen again. There are other areas (e.g. welfare and education) where there is immense waste. Start there. Once we have lost capabilities, we shall never get them back. General Sir Richard Dannatt tried to augment the Army by just 3,000 personnel to solve the manning problems in Afghanistan. Did he get them? No, of course not. That’s politicians for you. Let’s fight the cuts, even ask for more money, not supinely murmur, “Oh, we live in straitened economic times and must take our share of suffering.”
I see that the cuts have already begun, with the cancellation of the project to procure future search and rescue helicopters. This being the case, I’ve been giving thought to military projects that could be cut.
TD’s piece on the F-35 JSF may well prove prophetic, it certainly needs to catch-up on lost milestones to ensure it is financially viable. Costs are likely to rise again and such uncertainty makes it a clear candidate for review. It may be that we delay purchase.
i think the number of Eurofighter Typhoons we buy will also be reduced.
I think the FRES SV will also go. Everyone’s saying we don’t need tanks any more and even though the ASCOD 2 is more APC than MBT, I keep hearing government personnel refer to it as a light tank. That’s not a good sign.
I also think it is the end of the road for BAOR. No more forces of occupation in Germany! This will be accompanied by a scaling back of armoured units. Half the Challenger fleet will probably be mothballed, but what about all those Warriors?
i have been scratching my head about the NAvy. i just don’t know where we could cut. They may try to reduce the number of strategic missile nuclear submarines from 4 to 3. I think that would be a mistake, unless you can guarantee one ship at sea at any time.
Hi, i have a few questions as i have been wondering why we are building 2 very big, slow, lovely, targets for any attack pilot worth the name.
I am probably just ignorant, however, after doing some checking i find that the F117/A uses Turbofan engines……the Harrier II also uses a Turbofan engine,(yes with a different configuration), so why would it not be possible to make a stealthy version of the Harrier II?
Why not just upgrade the Harrier II, let the creative boffins loose with no interference.
Then build 4 or 5 (i favour 5) smaller ships like Incincible, Principe de Astruias or even Garibaldi class or if you really want bigger ships a modified Wasp class.
Yes, they are less capable ships & a lot less threatening to, for instance, Russia or China.
That is also exactly why i would build ships like that & not the CVF. Imagine sending such a ship as the CVF in range of the worlds biggest airforce, if anything happened such a ship would just vanish in a series of huge explosions.
I thought the purpose of the navy was sea control, securing the trade routes & sending ships to trouble spots to let people know we are either concerned or are paying attention to what is going on.
To do that, we need more hulls, i think.
I’d rather have many Land Rovers than a couple of Rolls-Royce’s. They may not be as flashy but they would get the job done.
Four or five such ships would give the Navy huge flexibility in a crisis & if one or two were sunk it would not be an absolute catastrophe.
Also it would be a lot less expensive compared to the CVF plus JSF. Should be able to build more replenishment ships too if we do not spend the, i think, £15 billion total for the two CVF & fifty odd JSF’s.
In my long winded way i suppose i’m saying i’d rather our Navy could put together three or even five task groups composed of baby carriers/Type45/Type26/Type23 & the proposed C2 ships in a serious situation.
With Trident Subs or replacements, i don’t think we also need to give the Russians or Chineese an added serious surface threat.
I have to admit that, to me, i never got the feeling that the Navy really liked or accepted the Harrier or the Invincible class. Their people always seemed to talk & think about big attack carriers. I remember jokes about disbanding the RAF & spending the money on bigger aircraft carriers like the US Navy, etc etc.
A final question if you don’t mind…..
Is the real reason we are building the CVF nothing more than military prestige ?
Hi Michael, welcome to TD
Lots of questions, many of which are discussed in other posts, we have done quite a bit of naval and naval fast air. Click on the military themes menu and click the relevant item or Future Defence Review
The first thing to cut would be one i never, even once, heard suggested: Rapier.
What the Hell the Rapier is for…? If the army was to need anti-air defence, against Iran in a potential scenario, for example, Rapier would be next to useless anyway, because it is seriously TOO limited.
It can engage only on a very short distance, and moreover to a very LOW altitude.
When by now next to everyone has guided bombs of some kind that can be launched from altitude and range, Rapier loses most of its reason to exist.
And to counter helicopters, far more probable a danger, there’s Starstreak that’s probably the world’s best.
Scrap Rapier and don’t replace it until CAAM comes into service, to start with.
The Regiments current using Rapier can all re-role to much needed Light Infantry.
Mothball Challie tanks and AS90 artillery: i don’t like the idea, but it is arguably the only possible cut. You certainly can’t think to cut on infantry while you already have difficulties in sustaining the war in Afghanistan without sending in the same regiments over and over again.
If anything, more infantry regiments should be reformed, but we know that this is sadly not going to happen.
Erase that shameful contract for GD Ascod II. Hell, they chose the worst possible vehicle for the role.
Go ahead with Warrior upgrade.
Go ahead with LPPV.
Scrap FRES as an organic program, it is a failure.
Review FRES SV requirement, because CV90 seemed far more adequate to the role (and the Armadillo version presented in Eurosatory in these days may be a perfect base)
Review FRES U requirement: you’ll need a wheeled personal carrier capable to replace the awfully obsolete Saxon but also replace Mastiff and such, since they are stop-gap measures and appear to be worn out already.
Keep FIST alive.
Airforce: i’m going against most people, again, but cut on Tornado, not on Harrier.
Harrier can go on the Ark Royal and Illustrious, Tornado no.
Until the UK fields the Queen Elisabeth and the JSF, the UK can’t do without Harrier. It already was demential a move to phase out the Sea Harrier.
The Typhoons could easily do the work of Tornados if the weaponry was integrated on them a bit more swiftly. It is obscene the time it takes lately to integrate a laser-guided bomb on a plane, seriously.
Pool the new air tankers with the french as it has been proposed. 8 for RAF as planned, the other 6 available but leased on hours-basis to the French air force.
Put the Nimrod MR4 in service. It is ridiculous the way they are penny-pinching on them, and their absence leaves a gap that is a bleeding wound in sea-control for the UK.
The 22 A400 are needed, and must be bought.
The Chinooks must be handed to the army air force. All of them.
The Merlins should be navalized by installing folding rotors and tail and handed to the navy to replace Sea King HC4.
Rethink about Puma upgrades, too: it may be more cost-effective to buy a bunch more Merlin-cargo, and buy them navalized already, so to have a single fleet of choppers capable to work in any environment, instead of having two distinct fleets.
Navy: hell, there’s simply nothing left to cut on the navy. You can’t cut anymore than so.
Unless you take a risk and further speed up the phasing out of the remaining Type 42.
They may even speed up the phasing out of the Type 22, but i hope they won’t.
Build 7 Astutes, no less.
Spend the damn 10 millions needed to complete the MK8 re-gunned to 155 mm, you’ll save lots of money with time by having a single stock of 155 mm ammo for army and navy.
Build the CVFs. BOTH of them. BUT WITH CATAPULTS AND ARRESTING GEAR. So at least the babblings about “pooling carriers with French” will have a little bit of realism in them.
I’d like to know how the hell you’d be able to share the Charles de Gaulle: the F35B wouldn’t be at home on it, and the french would be COMPLETELY UNABLE to fly their Rafales from the QE. Even if they wanted to, and i’m sure they don’t.
POOLING CARRIERS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
Buy “just” 70 F35C. Give them all to the navy, though, and keep RAF’s greedy hands at bay. Otherwise, they’ll end up like the Harriers, flying almost never from their intended bases on the seas.
Costs can be contained training personnel in the US, and the planes are likely going to require less mainteinance than the B version: for sure, they’ll need a lot less spare parts since there’s no lift fan, related doors and the transmission, that i suspect will be bloody-short as operational life.
Lease a bunch of Hawkeyes from the US surplus. It may end up as the less costy replacement for Sea King AW7. Certainly the most capable.
The Cerberus radar from the Sea Kings could go on a few of the Merlin HM1 and still be extremely useful: as mini-AWACS either on land (they are used in Afghanistan even now) or at sea.
They would be an AWESOME assets if embarked on Type 45 destroyers: they could make them tenfold as effective in intercepting sea-skimming supersonic targets by spotting them far earlier.
Keep designing the Type 26: keep cost down by using CAAM, MK41 VLS from the US, Artizan radars taken from Type 23 as they go out of service, and same goes for Harpoon and Stingray, all to be moved from a hull to the other. Gun mounts moving from Type 23 to Bae for “up-gunning” to Type 26.
BUILD THEM WITH A PLAIN, SIMPLE 2-helo HANGAR, no 1-helo plus dogkneel for UAV.
At least you’ll have space to answer to any need.
And keep collaborating with Australia and New Zealand, so you may be able to sell a few ships to them as well.
And sometime the government will have to admit that it can’t ignore international law forever, and the old single-hull tankers of the RFA need a replacement.
Gabriele,
What an interesting series of suggestions, particularly on the Army. I am very much in accord with most of them. Cancel the ASCOD II programme; go ahead with LPPV and Warrior update; scrap FRES as an organic programme; review FRES SV because CV90 seemed more suitable and ARMADILLO promising; review FRES utility programme as a wheeled personnel carrier is needed (RG35 or RG41?) – all agreed – excellent ideas!
Would you withdraw all CHALLENGERS and AS90s, though? Dangerous move, I would have thought.
I wonder also about the advisability of removing RAPIER. The Field Standard C (Rapier 2000) has a much wider operational capability than earlier Rapier versions. It also compares very favourably with the Starstreak HVM. It has a longer range (Rapier 7,000 m; HVM 5,500 m) and a higher ceiling (Rapier 3,000 m at least; HVM 1,000 m). It can engage 2 targets at once and is also a compact, mobile and air portable system, making it suitable for worldwide operations. It is also used to defend the Falkland Islands.
After clicking on a link to another thread (“Barking at the Moon”) I found an excellent list of suggestions by Phil Darley as to how the Army could be improved it we had a 20% increase in the defence budget. One thing he said disturbed me, though. He mentioned that ARMOURED STARSTREAK HVM (the version based on the Stormer) would be withdrawn from service this year. I had not read anything to that effect but if it is true and if RAPIER were to withdrawn also, that would leave only the LML- and shoulder-launched versions of HVM in service, creating a yawning gap in our air defences. I don’t know what would happen if we had to fight a war against a nation with even moderate airpower. What we really need of course is a few Improved Patriots or suchlike higher level AA missiles to provide theatre defence when deploying. We cannot always rely on NATO allies for that.
One more thing. If the story about the withdrawal of the Stormer HVMs is true, then I hope that some of those vehicles are retained. If they were refurbished and upgraded, the Stormers could prove excellent reconnaissance vehicles and possibly solve some of the problems of finding a recce vehicle to accompany lighter formations such as 16 Air Assault and 3 Commando Brigade.
Mike W, British Army Website does indeed say that Stormer will be gradually decomissioned from Mid 2009! Since the Stormer only entered service at the start of this decade I don’t understand this. I would have thought that the platform should be retained for upgrade to the Lightweight Multirole Missile (itself a derivative of Starstreak).
I too think that FRES should be formally cancelled. In due course Bulldog/Mastiff will require replacement (I think Saxon is already gone) but this is nothing to do with FRES. A 6×6 new generation MRAP with interior space for a full a section is required; RG35?
I simply don’t believe that either ASCOD 2 or CV90 is a replacement for Scimitar. We have bought Warthog so this should be CVR(T) family replacement.
I would also cancel LPPV. I do not think it is wise to pursue an MRAP in this weight category. Interior space so small that the utility of such a vehicle has to be questioned.
So in short Cancel FRES Scout and FRES UV, Cancel LPPV, withdraw CVR(T), upgrade Warrior and concentrate on supporting, maintaining current fleet add a few more Mastiff/Ridgeback, Warthog, Man Trucks. In 5 years or so start replacing Mastiff/Bulldog with, say, RG35.
What to cut?
I see the UK SAR Helicopter contract has been suspended on the basis of insufficient value for money. No mention yet of Future Tanker programme but this is where I would start. Second hand A330-200 are becoming available. A piecemeal outright purchase over time should be much more cost effective. In the meantime since we are committed to RC135 Joint Rivet perhaps we could lease a few KC135 from the US so we can refuel our RC 135s and C17s.
goood points jason, we have discussed stormer on here before. On one website it showed stormer in a variety of roles missile, troop carrier and even bridgelayer! perfect for a independant light mech brigade.
I was looking at the RG35 and now they have the RG41 which if i’m correct is a license copy of the turkish PARS a family of IFV’s 4×4, 6×6 and the 8×8 (8×8 is RG41) if BAe build these in the UK could be a good thing. So cut some the big, clanky stuff designed for the plains of germany (not of all it obviously) and invest in this, and uk companies to build it.
Oh and bin JSF!!!!
Hi Gabriele,
Although Rapier and starstreak are now obsolete, their tasks aren’t and need new systems to replace them. Both are very good missiles but have major problems such as rapier is too immobile for its short range and the starstreak is still pretty effective as a MANPAD the Stormer HVM is now too limited for the opposition (due to modern effective PGW Hellfire,spike and its Chinese/Russian equiv) the standoff range is too much for it now.
We desperately need a long range missile system such as Aster 30 SAMP/T or MEADS, but coming back to SHORADS I think we should buy the SKYRANGER gun system (for knocking out PGW at extreme short range) and combine it with the Stormer HVM (as this is optical system no one can accurately aim a missile at another missile just by sight) when the radar guided CAMM comes into service this should replace both stormer and rapier.
We desperately need the carriers to protect the fleet from hostile forces, people suggest mounting more harpoons on different ships but THIS will never happen. I can see them being removed totally due to our strict Rules of Engagement with no mass Russian fleets anymore, a hostile ship will have to be identified by the Mk1 Eyeball before any action can be taken (we don’t want to sink any ferries full of refugees now do we) and the best way to do this is with an aeroplane.
CVF over the invincible class and its equiv well we need long range CAP I would prefer engagements at +50nm rather than 5nm.
I do think we have a blind over Afghanistan, and are becoming too focused on it, there is very few countries like it anymore, even third world countries are buying serious hardware from china and Russia (our Aid money btw), Russia/China are producing very sophisticated and deadly weapons which are cheap and is something we should not take lightly as the next conflict the 300 dead in the Stan will look like small potatoes (one night attack at Monte Casino we lost more than that) it sounds cold and brutal but it is a numbers game, and the old maxim is right To achieve peace prepare for war
i’ll correct myself, RG41 is nothing to do with pars family, given myself star jumps!!!
We seem to have accepted the inevitability of cuts.
We are a virtually bankrupt country trying to fight an expensive war thousands of miles away. It is currently morally unsustainable to challenge, say, the use of valuable combat resources to ensure wounded soldiers are evacuated in the magic hour (e.g. maintaining a Chinook on alert, giving them an Apache escort), or lobbing a £50,000+ guided missile at a couple of AK-47-armed insurgents in a treeline or a mud-hut.
But it seems equally unpalatable for anyone to challenge the vast amounts of money being spent on all the other myriad areas of government expenditure – the budgets for the NHS and welfare state dwarf the defence budget.
SO while all enthusiasts play virtual toy soldiers with what to cut and which bits of shiny kit are better than others, the overall problem is that an already overstretched defence budget will be stretched even thinner while vastly more money gets wasted elsewhere.
Yes there are grave problems with defence procurement but these are insignificant compared with the wide political dimensions.
JamesD
All in all I think most if not all commentors on this blog would agree with you. Although I am a socialist at heart, I am not against cutting all government spending, including health and education. As admin and others have pointed out the international aid budget provides India, a nuclear power with larger armed forces than our own, a substantial amount every year. I think the theme has been – cuts are wrong, but they are coming anyway, so what should we cut ?
Personally I would like 3 x CVF all flying Rafale’s and E2D’s, but I aint gonna get it…..
Cut Trident – too expensive (£100bn give or take), plus it’s a Cold War relic – even top brass have come out and said so. The cost of horses, regalia and pomp is negligible given the scale of the National Deficit.
two posts seconds apart calling for trident to be cut?
theres a 62 comment long thread if your not trolling
What about the new PFI Training College planned for St Athan?
DTC Training Facilities – £96 million
Single Living Accommodation – £240M
Service Family Housing – £130.5M
Recreation and shooping facilities £3M
Leisure Centre and Sporting Facilities – £23M
Military museum – £23M
Messes, admin buildings, security offices, energy centre, medical centre – £421M
Most of this £800M would be saved by siting the project in current training facilities at Cosford and/or Blandford, now that the whole project is scaled down to 2700 or fewer trainee places. The Minister’s answer (Commons, 5 July) showed lack of seriousness (by his officials) to cut this new-build project.
I have to say I agree with the suggestions about scrapping plans to replace Trident nuclear weapons.
Most of the nations of the world are quite able to defend themselves without nuclear weapons, and so could we if we wanted to.
Unlike Trident, the armed forces are in service every day of the year playing a versatile and essential role defending the nation and supporting our allies overseas. We could not do without them, whereas we could get by without Trident.
At the very least, the Defence Review should include Trident so that the role it plays and its costs and benefits can be weighed up against the value of the services.