Must have been a really thorough Strategic Defence Review then…
A quote from Dr Liam Fox
What do the Challenger tanks in Germany and the costs of maintaining them and the personnel required to to train for them, what does that contribute to what’s happening in Afghanistan
This statement makes me think that he is basically unfit to be the Defence Secretary of toytown let alone the United Kingdom
Just a few things to counter that
1. The only reason Challenger 2 is not in Afghanistan is because the MoD does not want to fund them
2. Canadian and other forces have had tremendous success with their tanks in Afghanistan
3. Armoured engineers in Challenger 2 derived vehicles have been doing a brisk trade in Afghanistan
4. Those people he assumes are sitting on their arses in Germany polishing their Challengers are to be found driving Mastiff’s and other vehicles, guess where.
5.To see the latest casualty announcement click here and then see which regiment one of them comes from click here, does anything jump off the page? He might have chosen his words very carefully because strictly speaking they are a UK unit but 3 soldiers from 2 Royal Tank Regiment have also have died in Afghanistan and many more from the Formation Recce units, also stationed in Germany.
We all know we are going to have to face a reduction but please, lets stop pretending it is anything other than an exercise in cutting dressed up with the new clothes of some superior strategic insight or knowledge, because you are convincing no one. Picking on those so called Cold War relics and using them as a fig leaf for the unpalatable truth just demonstrates a serious lack of wisdom and beyond the idiots of the most of the mainstream media, you are becoming a figure of ridicule.
Just come out with, we are going to have to drastically reduce the budget and some things are going to have to go.
PS, is anyone missing Geoff yet?
well at least one fox (robert) has a clue!! seriously it’s like a film “cuts again 2″ return of the hoon. Still at least we’ve got a nice new stadium and swimming pool in london, for the bargain price of 12 billion and counting!
“We all know we are going to have to face a reduction but please, lets stop pretending it is anything other than an exercise in cutting dressed up with the new clothes of some superior strategic insight or knowledge, because you are convincing no one.”
I think we would both agree that the claim the the SDSR is “Policy-led and resourse-informed” is an out-and-out lie, however……….
If the cuts are inevitable that does not mean that there is no serious thought going into the question of how to retain strategic effect with what is left.
Quite the opposite, under these conditions I would absolutely expect to find the minds behind the SDSR, at the recent RUSI conference, at the weekend meeting a few days ago, and the meetings in Fox’s office, focused like laser beams on how one can hack ~£6b out of the defence budget and still be able to meet foreign policy objectives.
Some of this is sad but sensible, such as the mooted idea of bringing the RM brigade and Airforce regiment under Army command, some downright foolish in my opinion such as acquiring only one carrier.
The cuts are not nice, I would personally see the Defence budget rise, and the result chosen may not be the one I would prefer, but it is a leap to take these frantic counter-briefings at face value and assume that the SDSR process itself is of no value, and merely a venue for treasury instigated cuts.
Myself like thousands of others appear to have been taken in by the apparent sincerity and rhetoric of Lima Fox whilst he was in opposition.
We all know that politicians make promises that they cannot keep and unfortunately we accept that as a fact but Liam Fox is now ‘coming out’ as a purveyor of non truths far beyond those that we expected.
I accept that he was not privy to the details of the financial disaster that is the MOD,but as a shadow minister he must have had a very good idea of what he was going to inherit.
To now turn round and prepare more cuts for the armed forces whilst they are fighting a vicious war and then accuse (yes accuse) some of them of being of no relevance is not only pathetic but also an insult to the armed forces.
He is indeed begining to look more and more like the incompetent and inefectual ‘Hoon’ character another yes man to Dave and Nick.
Whatever one might think of Bob Ainsworth he at least came across as a person of principal with the best interests of the armed forces at heart,Fox is neither of these things sadly he is just another politican desperate to please his masters at the expense of the armed forces.
Agree with Jedibeeftrix.
Best to wait until the facts emerge rather than take every newspaper report of cuts as ‘definite’
And the ‘tanks no use in Afghanistan’ remark doesn’t really sound like Liam Fox at all, I wonder what context it what said in.
We all know cuts have to be made (well they don’t but we prefer spending it on workshy types instead) but I think there will be s strategic element to them.
Interesting that on here Fox is being called a sop to the Treasury and in the Morning Star they’re labelling him a warmonger considering how pro-military he is!
…..*reads about Defence in the mainstream press*……*head butts wall repeatedly*……
Well it appears that we are giving Liam Fox the benefit of the doubt.
I would be only too happy to go along with the general opinion if I was an eternal optimist which I am most definately not when it comes to politics.
The suggestion that what has been said is down to the media is blatantly untrue.
What Fox said at the RUSI conference is just a feeder for what is going to happen.
For a start you Cannot ‘hack £6bn’ out of the defence budget and still be able to meet foreign commitments,just not possible.
To suggest that the RAF Regiment and the Royal Marines be amalgamated into the Army is sensible may be so in monetary terms but would in practice be a disaster.
You would lose two elite fighting forces both with their own ethos and history and merge them into an Army which has already lost numerous historic regiments.
Doing this makes just as much sense as ordering only one CVF,not that you appear slightly biased.
So Fox has only been in ‘Urgent discussions’ with the treasury as a matter of course,absolute rubbish.
Of course the treasury are demanding drastic cuts and if you say otherwise then you are either in denial or in agreement with the cuts.
From what Fox has said (not what the media has said) it would appear that some major decions have already been made which is alarming considering we are only two months into what is supposed to be a six month long review.
I think that we are entitled to be cynical.
The reality is that the best case for defence spending is a 15% cut, which roughly translates at £5.25billion, and that is the best case……….
Optimistically, although defence is not a protected department it is ranked alongside education as a department that will be spared the blanket 20% cut destined for all the others.
Mention of 40% is politically most useful as an expectations management ploy, but useful for osborne to find departments with extra ‘fat’ that can be trimmed to pay for the four departments that should see cuts of less than 20% or none at all.
Fundamentally, if you don’t believe it is possible to make cuts in Defence without reference to the national interest in general, and strategic capability in particular, then following the SDSR is pointless as it represents nothing more masochism.
This is not to say that ‘they’ will make the right decisions, and equally it is not to say that a strategy that achieves the national interest is the one that you or I would prefer. However, there are at least two paths that ‘should’ maintain Britain as a Great Power, capable of sovereign and strategic power projection, as well as a third that would maintain Britain as a regional power capable of strategic power projection, and crucially all three are predicated on cuts in spending similar to the assumptions listed above.
Getting all hot and bothered about rumoured cuts in the news is premature, for in general it is unsubstantiated scaremongering, and the specific examples of fast jets and armour should be no surprise to anyone considering the hangover from the cold war.
The SDSR is well informed by the likes of RUSI, IPPR, the services themselves, various other think-tanks, our NATO allies, not to mention fantastic sites like Think Defence right here. While it is possible the SDSR will be a complete cock-up, it won’t be from lack of expert insight, and it should be assisted by a government that supports Britain as a significant actor in world affairs, and a hawkish Defence minister who has demonstrated over the years a significant interest in Defence.
I’m not trying to act as an apologist for Fox, all I would say is that he is at least a sympathetic ear listening to a wealth of good advice, and thus the best possible chance exists to ensure that this defence review, ‘should’ not be a disaster.
If you argue that a 20% cut is unequivocally a disaster already, insomuch as any result will be unable to achieve the national interest, then fine, but that is a different debate entirely.
I am willing to take RUSI at their word that there are paths available under the current scenario that will lead to a useful Armed Forces capable of sovereign and strategic power projection.
Whether the right path is taken to achieve this end is another matter, but little i have heard so far leads me to believe this cliff edge is looming.
“To suggest that the RAF Regiment and the Royal Marines be amalgamated into the Army is sensible may be so in monetary terms but would in practice be a disaster.
You would lose two elite fighting forces both with their own ethos and history and merge them into an Army which has already lost numerous historic regiments.”
I’m not so sure
Well, merging The Reg would be silly, but does the Royal Navy need 7,000 battlefield soldiers?
I think the RAF and RN should have a small force protection arm, the left overs should be moved into the army.
Its not like they dont already come under army command in the SFSG.
i’m not keen for it to happen either, but if we get pushed down to five regular combat brigades in the army with a similar squeeze in the RN/RAF it may be the only sensible way to preserve these specialist functions in any way at all.
Well they say that there are only two certainties…Death and Taxes. Well, we now have a third lying politicians/stupid defence secretary’s.
I was really hoping that this lot would do things properly? You must decide what you want your armed forces to do then equipment for that task, even if that means you need MORE money!
This is yet again going to be a cut at all cost exercise which will cut capbility and equipment that we will need and will only result in unnecessary death and injury.
I am very depressed by this. I know I shouldn’t be but I am.
A dark day indeed.
Anyone for a revolution???
from an article trapped behind the great murdoch paywall:
“The navy has offered to put the Royal Marines under the control of the army in an attempt to stave off any further cuts to its destroyers and frigates.
According to defence sources, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the first sea lord, hopes his proposals will head off an army attempt to absorb the marines completely. He believes it will allow the navy to retain symbolic command of the marines while saving on training and administration.
Army sources dismissed suggestions that the 8,000-strong marines and the Parachute Regiment might be merged as “a recipe for disaster”. “They each have a completely different ethos,” one said. “They couldn’t possibly be merged.”
Instead, the army would like to incorporate the marines into an elite military force alongside the Parachute Regiment.”
I think it is accepted that a merger would be pointless and destructive, and so that appears not to be on the table. Rather it is an administrative change to reduce training and overhead costs……..
Come back Bob Ainsworth, all is forgiven!
I wonder if this is what we’ll all be thinking after the details of the defence review are announced. What the Armed Forces think themselves is largely irrelevant, cuts will be made based on the amount of money they save rather than any capabilities they retain. We live in a depressing new era of the professional politician, for whom power for power’s sake is more important than serving the greater good. If half of these bird-brained ideas get-off the ground, we won’t just be the junior partner in any coalition with our American allies but also with our German, French and italian allies. W
The armies of all 3 nations are already now larger than ours and while their navies are more or less the same size as ours, they are not islands who depend on open sea lanes for resupply in time of war.)
We’ve had Royal Marines – soldiers who live at sea to protect our ships for 300 years or more. It is a system that works. Why change it? I doubt it will save very much money at all. As as been rightly pointed out it will erode a military culture and esprit de corps that has given the UK a psychological edge for generations.
The paras are unlikely to ever make a combat drop again just as the cavalry are unlikely to ever charge into battle on black stallions with their sabres rattling. The point is they are airborne troops: go anywhere quickly, usually by helicopter, troops.
We need quick reaction by sea. We need quick reaction by air. To lose this would be criminal, never mind the train wreck it would wreak on the regimental system.
In short, and I’l; say it again, this situation our defence minister is faced with is like the one all of us have individually faced as we deal with the recession. Suddenly, the mortgage payments seem excessive. So what do we do, move into a smaller flat or house? Of course, not we cut elsewhere or we POSTPONE big ticket items until next year. If Challenger is not needed, then neither is the FRES SV. we need to make smart choices, but so far i only see absurd proposals, because the truth is we are now governed by a bunch of naive idiots equally bad as the last bunch of naive idiots.
Ref RM to Army:
JediBeeftrix said: “Rather it is an administrative change to reduce training and overhead costs……..”
Its not even that, it wont actually reduce anything, all it does is MOVE the costs from the Navies budget to the Armies budget, and 3 x CDO would be counted in the overall count of Infantry Battalions, so you could cut 3 from the Orbat, but the total would look the same !
What about the Marines NOT in the 3 CDO’s ? Those employed on maritime anti-terror, force protection, nuke protection etc “the fleet force” – paid by the army but working for the Navy… ????
I dont think the Army would want the RM and if anyone thinks the Army will get rid of say, some guards and county regiments/battalions but absorb the RM, I think they are somewhat confused about interservice politics!
good points both, lol.
Nicholas,
There are moments when Ainsworth does look good in retrospect. Someone you could actually call a Labourite (which is to say a union lad from Coventry rather than an oily authoritarian self-publicist like, well, nearly all of the late government.) A certain doughty pragmatism, and the ability to say something that the service Chiefs should have sacked up and done long before: if the logistics chain won’t wear it, we can’t do it.
JBT and Admin,
The jockeying over the Royal Marines/3 Commando Brigade seems like it indicates that, beneath all the salami-slicing ward politics, there are inter-service fears that this is a “strategic moment.” They’re all afraid of what (with my naval bias) you could call a CVA-01 moment, where politicking over national strategy gives one or two services an irrevocable leg up in kit and (horrors) budget for an extended period of time.
The RAF is terrified of becoming an air-defence/Article 5 force because they’re understandably afraid short-termist politicians don’t see this is in the real (existential) national interest. Also (cynic hat on) because air marshals won’t be able to punch their career tickets dropping COIN bombs if most of your agile expeditionary air hops ashore (V/STOL or to airbases) from carriers. Much of the current generation running High Wycombe started out in the wake of the glorious inter-service victory over CVA-01 and remember the high point of the postwar RAF (other than Korea), Op Granby. (They prefer to forget that low-and-fast caused casualty rates that would’ve made a horse cavalryman blanch.) Becoming a largely defensive service would seem like a betrayal of years working for the RAF’s crucial part in holding onto the dregs of Britain’s old power base (as opposed to building a new one), what one critic calls “Carry On Empire.”
The Army, particularly Richards’ army, has ptu all its chips on the COIN square. This was graphically stupid, for a whole raft of reasons. But it’s been done. And beyond that Richards sees conflict in that frame — he led Britain’s only undisputed military victory (one secured almost entirely by military means, taht is) in a guerilla-based conflict since the Indonesian Conflict. Like the engineer Kitchener and Omdurman, it made the artilleryman Richards and he sees war through its frame. More than that from such a point of view, *command* of such an expedition made his current position possible, rather than being a time-served brigadier from the RA. From a cynic’s view that means the power of a possible CDS (Richards is there already) and retirement sweetened with corporate dierctorships, from an idealist’s the chance to give soldiers the leadership they deserve and shape the service as you see it. If epeditionary warfare has a much more naval bias (which is not just strategically sensible but, right now, financially necessary if you don’t want to be chasing American logistics around like Mutt and Jeff) then who’s in charge when you land is crucial to force structure, budget lines, and career prospects. If 3 Cdo Brigade retains its chain of command, you get lots more Sandy Woodwards and Nick Vauxes, fewer Army regiments and David Richardses. Real consequences if you make your service a vocation.
There are ways around all that of course, and our blog boss has pointed out just how barmy “let’s merge the hard men” is in practice. A more alarmist question emerged lately on the Warships1 board — and really, the folks there are classy and rich with knowledge, but given to alarm — whether the RN would be made to trade the amphibs (which the RM are set to live on) for the surface fleet. This is likewise pratical lunacy unless you really do want to be the fifty-first American state. Without the Yanks the only way to get there in real force (even with French or Commonwealth collaboration) is by water. So maybe that’s a climb-down by Richards, “we bargained for the amphibs but at least we got command of expeditionary land forces.” It’s all so byzantine. And does not a damned thing for the actual defence of the Realm. Feh.
“Confrontation,” not “Conflict.” My kingdom for an HTML edit…
Nicely put Jackstaff, I believe I am agreed.
The army might not “want” the Royal Marines, but it might not be (very) averse to taking on 6000 Amphious Commandos.
The RAF Reg and The Royal Marines serve valuable roles.
Ships and fast air are expensive and its worth having some specialist hardmen to protect them.
But once they form up into a brigade and start fighting land wars I have to question why they’re not under army control.
I think Jackstaff explains it well, the army should probably accept its going to lose out in any case, its best served offering up any 2nd battalions (or 2nd – 5th in the case of The Rifles) and accepting the royal marines as The Amphibious Regiment and sitting them next to The Parachute Regiment on any organograms.
It loses some funding now, but it secures all ground combat except for the bits it refuses to do anyway.
Yes, they have a completely different ethos, but the same effect, when the British Government wants someone beaten up, they send The Parachute Regiment and The Amphibious Regiment with pointy stabby bits on the end of rifles.
The army might not like it, but can they hope for anything better?
“There are moments when Ainsworth does look good in retrospect. Someone you could actually call a Labourite (which is to say a union lad from Coventry rather than an oily authoritarian self-publicist like, well, nearly all of the late government.) A certain doughty pragmatism, and the ability to say something”
Ainsworth and his ilk might not have been oily self publicists, but thehe bowed down before the oily self publicisits holding the whips for 13 years just the same.
If my memory serves me, one Labour minister resigned in protest over government actions, half a dozen in power struggles. The rest just turned up and asked the shop steward what slogan to chant at the factory gates this week.
Dominic if an RM Cdo deploys to Iraq or Afstan then it IS under Army control ! It fits onto the orbat as a light inf bttln under the control of whatever the currently deployed Brigade HQ is.
On the other hand 3Cdo Brig. HQ has deployed to the land locked sand pits and exercised opcon of Army units.
In other words it’s all political bollocks !
As for yr point on the Army taking control of expeditionary ops once the “green death” are feet dry – because the Army are not the experts in amphibious warfare or ocean borne over the beach logistics, that’s why !!
Question for the knowledgeable:
Why do the media talk of reports stating the number of brigades falling to five from a current total of [8]?
According to wiki we have [9] army brigades, not including the RM brigade (the tenth):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_British_Army#Brigades
Are they just wrong, or is it because some (one?) is not considered a combat formation, rather it is a administrative brigade, perhaps………..
Many thanks
is it because the 11th is only considered a temporary formation, with its constituent units being returned to their home formations next year……………?
Jed
True, but only in the same way the Danish forces do.
They (the RM) arent British Army, sometimes they’re subsurvient to, sometimes they’re in charge of, but they’re always seperate.
Following the proposed change, ground based warmaking would be the preserve of the British Army, which would have specialists in armoured warfare, mechanised warfare, light infantry warfare, airborne (inserted and supplied) warfare and maritime (inserted and supplied) warfare.
Dominic,
“but thehe bowed down before the oily self publicisits holding the whips for 13 years just the same.
If my memory serves me, one Labour minister resigned in protest over government actions, half a dozen in power struggles. The rest just turned up and asked the shop steward what slogan to chant at the factory gates this week.”
Lol, mostly a fair point. My brief for saying something in Ainsworth’s defence is mostly the last point I made, namely saying what service Chiefs really should be paid to: if we don’t have the capability (including the capacity to sustain ops), we can’t do it, Prime Minister. You’ll have to come up with something other than hitting the problem over the head with our brave young (and not-quite-so-young) men and women.
Paul G,
“Cuts Again 2: Return of the Hoon.” Ha! Can someone photoshop a movie poster for that? Like the Sloane Rangers used to say, brill.
Jed,
On areas of competence and politicking bullshit, amen.
JBT and Nicholas,
I think that question wrt the 11th answers the point about brigades. I could see six myself, plus the current RM brigade in some form for seven, mostly so that the bdes are big enough to stand and fight on their own, rather than requiring most of a division’s logistical overhead just to service them in the field (Afghanistan and Iraq, I’m looking at you.) And it makes sense for the Army to be smaller than the continental neighbours’, indeed for any period not labelled 1940-90 it’s a centuries-long precedent. As for per capita numbers, France and Italy’s armies are artificially large b/c the French operate the “overseas departments” as the last colonial empire complete with rapid-reaction garrisons, and the Italians use a chunk of the Escercito D’Italia as an unbribable police force. (That on top of the Carabinieri.)
Dominic,
I would single-battalion the regimental system in a heartbeat, not just for lineage which (apologies to Admin) counts for a bloody lot, but also diversity of recruiting bases. Undo the nonsense of “The Royal Regiment of Scotland” that no one really pays attention to and “The Rifles” both. (Keep the Jocks in force with their original names and tartans. Shave two bns off “The Rifles” and bring back RGJ, Light Infantry, and maybe a “Royal Wessex Regiment” in the regulars (Glosters, Wilts, D&Ds, etc?) unless you want to give them back their due as TA cadres for an Article 5 war.)
And sometimes there’s a reason to shout at the factory gates
The trouble is most large organisations (unions very much included) end up being run by venomous and/or vacuous fools whose only practical skill lies in transfer of blame.
that question of brigade size and numbers has cropped up again on my site as you have noted.
trying not to be dogmatic on these issues, and i recognise the problems of small brigades that struggle in theatre, and the large overhead of maintaining many brigade structures.
however, i’m still curious to see if it can be squeezed in the RUSI FDR7 proscription of 80 units, as the deployment flexibility of that number of brigades is significant.
as always, i look forward to being shot down.
As far as I am aware 11X is a temporary Unit, 52X has been disbanded which leaves 7 regular Army Bdes:
1(UK) Armd Div
4X
7X
20X
3 (UK) Div
1X
12X
19X
and JHC with 16AAX
Bringing the Single battalions into proper Regimental size makes some sense and has a cost saving involved, only 1 kind of kilt need be issued for the Scottish Bn’s, same with the Rifles, Mercians, Yorks & PWRR, these are obviously savings in bulk but every little helps.
Colleagues if mine have already discussed the impact of the upcoming SDSR and some feel that 20,000 hit to the Army is already a done deal even tho our GOC has said nothing has yet been decided, some feel that the AGC will be hit hard in the coming round but as ever we won’t know for certain until the SDSR is published.
I certainly worry now that the Treasury has decreed Capital costs for the Vanguard replacement must come from a core Budget that can’t afford it.
Even more tellingly will be the impact of Treasuries limitations of the delegation of costs for Operations and how they seriously expect to manage them.
Cheers for the info, very useful.
it does rather make the idea of nine brigades in an 80,000 man army rather infeasible, although I must confess I still don’t understand why.