Are we being unfair on the SDSR process, I ask because it seems that it has descended into a bitch fight between deeply entrenched views based on single service perspectives. The Army seem to be suggesting that we don’t need carriers, the RAF are saying air superiority is more important than tanks in Germany and the Royal Navy are suggesting that CVF is the answer to whatever question seems to fit the answer.
I have bemoaned the lack of a well articulated Strategic Vision from an almost invisible Foreign & Commonwealth Secretary but a three things are worth noting.
- We are skint
- We are skint
- Did I say, we are skint
Perhaps it’s simply time to accept that in such drastic times we can’t afford a strategy and a series of tactical decisions are needed to create the breathing space in which we can sit back and formulate a coherent strategy for the UK’s defence and wider security needs.
If we have a short term strategy it should sit on three tactical legs
Afghanistan*, whilst it is true that a strategy should consider the time period after Afghanistan there seems an unseemly haste to almost forget we are engaged in a resource hungry operation that must have absolute top priority. This is an uncomfortable fact for the other services but can they really insist on more jets or ships at the expense of day to day operations, care of the wounded and other ‘current account’ events?
Cost Reduction, whether we like it or not and even though I think we could all make a convincing case for why defence should be spared the reality is that the defence budget is massively overheated and that is before we even consider a reduction. It does seem manifestly unfair that the NHS and especially overseas aid is ring fenced
On Ice, any decisions on major projects should simply be deferred. A more considered SDSR should take no more than 6 months, building on work already done and if this means stretching build programmes out then we just have to accept the cost increases and other down sides.
The Defence and Foreign Secretary’s should simply be upfront and drop the pretence that the ‘strategy’ in the SDSR is simply to get through the next few years.
We definitely need a new direction, if only to answer a number of capability questions but there is a wide held belief that the current top down budgetary focus has relegated any strategy to being an also ran.
We need to get the SDSR right, we owe it to the country and the service personnel we put in harms way to avoid making long term decisions based on short term problems.
I also wonder that if Liam Fox has ‘won’ the battle over funding it merely puts off those difficult decisions that we all know will have to be made
*I fully accept that all three services are engaged and contributing to operations in Afghanistan
“I have bemoaned the lack of a well articulated Strategic Vision from an almost invisible Foreign & Commonwealth Secretary but a three things are worth noting.”
-
It is frequently noted that we don’t do grand strategy, not without justifcation, and not without sincere regret.
-
“Perhaps it’s simply time to accept that in such drastic times we can’t afford a strategy and a series of tactical decisions are needed to create the breathing space in which we can sit back and formulate a coherent strategy for the UK’s defence and wider security needs.”
-
If we are talking short term, then yes, but even then there is no reason we could not have a longer term strategy, merely that it is difficult and the people in charge (collectively) have shied away from agreeing one………. and then adopting it.
-
“I also wonder that if Liam Fox has ‘won’ the battle over funding it merely puts off those difficult decisions that we all know will have to be made”
-
If the London Evening Standard is to believed, your prescription of; Afghan + CostReductions + OnIce is exactly what has happened.
-
Certainly there are doctrines that have been advanced, and appear to have advocates in various quarters, they have simply not be acted upon.
I think we are more guilty of pride and not just accepting this is just a brief moment in history and that everything is transient.
If we end up speaking “Chinese”, praying to Mecca, and driving on the right it is only history doing its thing.
bloody hell x, that’s a bit profound
Well I cannot be as profound as x…..
Surely if we are skint, that is exactly why we need strategy !
In business it is usually a case that if you show me a failing company, I will show you a failing leadership with no / wrong strategy – how is politics that much different ?
If we have very little cash / resource, how do we prioritize our spending / resource use without a vision of what we are trying to achieve ?
Ref: “whilst it is true that a strategy should consider the time period after Afghanistan there seems an unseemly haste to almost forget we are engaged in a resource hungry operation that must have absolute top priority” – mmmm’ not at all convinced about this.
If a “grand strategy” said it’s a waste of blood and treasure, it is not “winnable” as we understand the term, then it might be politically unpleasant, and the Yanks might kick up about it, so if we are truly skint, and that’s where all the money is going, then surely the top priority must be to follow the Neatherlands and Canada and withdraw ?
You make a number of good points. Chiefly we are skint.
I am not convinced that putting it off for 6 months or 6 years is going to do much. As you have stated the budget is massifley oveheated already. There is an argument that we are 13 billion in a hole without any “cuts as such”.
We have been (if I may mix my physical metaphors); Putting our fingers in our ears, and shouting La La La very loudly to reality for the last 10 years. Whilst (and this is the difficult bit), whistling to keep our spirits up. Basically we’ve bent the credit card to breakling point and the bailifs are at the door.
IF we postpone for 6 months, thats 6 months more carrier building, six months more generaly proceeding in the direction we are going at the moment, essentally in the wrong direction.
6 Months will simply make it worse.
Im not saying what is proposed is any good, but the political presuure to salami slice will simply get worse, in an attempt to keep ‘capabilities’ that will march only on paper. But keep every force happy.
I am just concerned about the haste, to coincide with the CSR, decisions made in haste are rarely good
Admin Your argument would have more weight if there was any indication that HMG have a history of getting it right after long deliberation.
In fact there would be 6 months more inter service dirty politics
While I fully agree on the need for defence strategy tied into our foreign policy, another six months debate will see each Service trying to further commit their favourite projects and hoping no u-turn will be possible.
I still struggle with the apparent waste of the Army’s FRES SV, based on ASCOD, how can this traditional design take us any further than we could have gone with a far cheaper upgrade to Warrior. Oh, I forgot this 40T vehicle isn’t a replacement for WR, its a replacement for an 11T recce vehicle CVR(T) – what games are the Army playing? It would seem that others have noticed with the rather light weight article in the Sat Telegraph on FRES. Rant over
MRW, welcome to Think Defence
We have covered FRES in some details
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/03/fres-scout-%E2%80%93-spot-the-difference/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/08/what-does-a-cvrt-replacement-look-like-part-1/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/08/what-does-a-cvrt-replacement-look-like-%E2%80%93-part-2/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/08/cvrt-what-are-we-losing/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/07/some-more-thoughts-on-fres-scout/
nice to see that whilst we’re digging down the back of the sofa, the EU has decided they need more money to the brussels butlins (although no-one has certified their accounts for x number of years). Following from Daily Telegraph
In just nine days from now, George Osborne will announce a package of public spending cuts more draconian than anything since the Geddes Axe of the 1920s. Yet on Wednesday in the House of Commons, MPs are being invited to approve a budget that involves an increase in expenditure. How can this be; and who is the recipient of such unexpected largesse from the UK taxpayer?
The answer, and it will come as no surprise, is the European Union. MPs are debating a memorandum from the European Commission setting out its arguments for a 5.8 per cent increase in its spending for 2011. This would boost annual spending to around £115 billion – about half the annual public expenditure of a country the size of the Netherlands. Since we are among the contributors to the budget, we pay for it. The UK’s net transfer to EU institutions is set to rise from £6.4 billion this year to £8.3 billion in 2011-12. By 2015, it will be around £10.3 billion
Also nice to see baroness never been voted for ashton, couldn’t be arsed to go a meeting in which she was supposed to defend the current EU rebate of £3billion a year, too busy at another meeting which with incredible bad luck was in the bahamas! Time for referendum as this starting to grip my sh1t, we suffer whilst those champagne socialists enjoy free ski-ing trips (£800 a head last year) on our funds, it’s such a gravy train just ask the kinnocks, he makes ashamed to be welsh
As well as the usual service infighting, I think we also need to add to the mix the feeling by some in the Treasury and Foreign Office that Defence is an expensive luxury, even a dangerous one. And that by taking away the toys, we take away the ability of our politicians to get ourselves embroiled in further overseas adventures. A period of ‘Glorious Isolation’ could actually be a good thing, but the problem with this line of thought is that the ‘Fantasy Island’ mentality of our political class is so deeply engrained that they continue to make commitments, regardless of the loss of capabilities. This is true of all shades of political opinion from the neo-con right and their desire to be USA-lite to the Guardianistas who are the first to shout ‘something must be done’ when Africans start massacring each other.
Whilst I’m having a rant, the fact that we’re skint has to be incorporated into any strategy, but can we be equally honest about the direction of foreign policy. Is the fact that our Foreign Secretary is virtually invisible due the the role having been made redundant by the EU or is it that he can’t be arsed? It would be nice if someone in Government would let us know because it should be pretty fundamental to the overall strategy.
And finally, on the subject of honesty, despite being in favour of a broadly maritime based defence policy, I am highly sceptical about the Royal Navy’s cost projections on CVF. I’m no naval architect, but it does seem to me that the capabilities of CVF have been so parred down, in order to save costs, that they could actually be an operational liability. I suspect that to bring them up to something approximating to a US Navy equivalent we would be looking at doubling the spend, even without the air group.
‘I suspect that to bring them up to something approximating to a US Navy equivalent we would be looking at doubling the spend, even without the air group.’
I think the mistake there is trying to think they are a USN equivalent. Whatever your thoughts on CVF – they are a leap in capability over our current mini-carriers.
We are *short term* broke, so my one wish is that we don’t take decisions now that are irreversible in 5 years time when the countries finances are better and we dont have a war to fund in Afghanistan.
That essentially means keep the Navys firepower and getting in the F35 program of whatever variety.
Andy, I take your point, but if this is the case then then RN should stop referring to them as super carriers. Surely the US Navy carriers have higher specifications to enable them to to operate in high end warfighting environment. If this is not the requirement or intention for CVF then someone should say so.
I just think we need to get away from the mindset of living in a fantasy World, we’re already a laughing stock for referring to the Invincible class as ‘strike carriers’. We should either do things properly or not at all.
It’s seems strange that every one in the UK beats on CVF while the rest of the world especially many in the US hale it as genious. QE is not the Gerald Ford but the new fords are coming in at $15 billion a piece. Also US Carriers are only typically carrying 30-40 strike fighters. About the same as QE. The QE’s running costs are amazing as well. Only £44 million per year. A crew of around 1,500 Compared to a Nimitz at 5000+.
The term super carrier was first used to describe the USS Forrestal which was actuall slightly smaller the the Queen Elizabeth so I don’t see it as unreasonable for the Navy to describe the QE as a super carrier.
I agree with the sentiment of the article. We are skint and it’s best to get through the next few years with a reduced capability. Afghanistan has to be the priority. However we have already paid for the CVF’s. It won’t save us any money to cancel it. Lets get these ship’s in what ever format we can. Even if we have to mothball them atleast they will be there for the future. We have given our ship yards guaranteed contracts that will be expensive to cancel. However we can keep them building boats then sell them on the international market in the way we have done with our surplus Typhoons. Keeping our head down in the current economy and planning for better times is the only option we really have.
I don’t agree with allot of the sentiment here that putting things of only delays the enivitable. The country can easily afford it’s current military. If the military had more public support we could afford to double spending. What we can’t afford are wasteful social programs that don’t work. These programs such as welfare and the NHS have consumed ever larger and larger chunks of the national pie. Now we seem to be faced with a dilema. Keep the NHS or get rid of education and defence. Unfortunatley in the current climate the NHS is winning hand down. The need to maintain our skill level (through education) and defend our foreign interests (MOD) is going out of the window.
@ Martin – “A crew of around 1,500 Compared to a Nimitz at 5000+.”
I believe that the basic crew is just north of 600, however, it has the hotel facilities to cope with a total of just less than 1500.
Capacity: 1,450
Complement: 600
jedi,
I apologise you are correct. It’s quite amazing that such a large vessel can be run on so few crew.
I was just mulling over further thoughts for the “Fast Forward to the Beginning” post when Think Defence kindly developed the issue here.
I agree some thinking along ‘strategic’ lines is warranted but I can’t convince myself that there is some big thing that had we done it, it would be the comprehensive vision that transcends all considerations, that some seem to imagine it would be.
Given that it is self evident you first protect your own territory the strategy question presumably relates to interoperability with other nations in the ‘world policeman’ role. Isn’t that what NATO’s for and therefore that’s where you will find your strategy?
Think Defence is right, it is impossible to avoid the current budget constraints. It would be great to set out what we, the public, might want UK defence to be capable of and then declare our willingness to pay the bill. But when its clear that a pound extra spent on defence will mean a pound less is spent on child benefit or a pound more is charged on student fees, etc, with all that that means, the debate is way beyond the confines of a nice tidy defence issue – and, I suspect, un-resolvable.
Also:
- It is said often enough that history shows that no amount of analysis has yet managed to predict the next conflict we will face. So is a strategic analysis going to solve our most difficult problem – forewarning us of the unexpected?
- If we make our analysis and adopt our chosen strategic posture, it then follows that if something comes up outside of that posture we should say “sorry chaps this is not in our remit, we can’t help you here”. But is it realistic to expect to constrain politicians and future governments in that way? If some calamity comes along that fires up politicians’ imaginations it’s likely that the military will be ordered into action whether they are prepared for it or not. And its not just wayward politicians who will upset the plan; it’s obvious that the army was never prepared for the sustained operation in Iraq but that didn’t stop them from demanding a slice of the action regardless.
- Even in good times implementing a strategic posture will be an aspiration rather than an event. For example, if your analysis tells you need another ship, from decision until the day that that ship slips out of Portsmouth on its first patrol will likely be ten years. Sods law being what it is within that ten years there will be another SDSR that will say its not ships that are needed but more tanks! So far from bringing certainty and stability you are at risk of continually chasing a goal only to find it keeps changing on you.
I find General Dannatt to be as self serving as the rest of them, but I do agree with his straight forward take on it: to preserve a core of basic all round capability but with a tilt towards the issues of the day, and every few years you review the tilt to see if should be reoriented in some other direction.
For what it is worth, the government (actually David Cameron) has set out a very simple defence objective although the message has been lost amongst the noise of the undignified inter-service lobbying; it is to guarantee the defence of the UK with any expeditionary ambitions strictly contained within the budget given. At least we know where we stand.
“I find General Dannatt to be as self serving as the rest of them, but I do agree with his straight forward take on it: to preserve a core of basic all round capability but with a tilt towards the issues of the day, and every few years you review the tilt to see if should be reoriented in some other direction.”
I believe general dannatt underplays the degree of ’tilt’ that this review is going to require…………… if what is to emerge is going to have any strategic utility.
i find the opposite to be true, if money doesnt matter, you can just deal with whatever comes along as it comes along by throwing round bags of money.
Its when your cash flow is limited that you need serious planning.
AAAAAAHHHHH It’s turned into another CVF argument!!!
OK Ixion, here’s a non-CVF slant.
A few years ago Dr Edward De Bono coined a new word – “PO”. That is a provocation that you don’t necessarily stand behind, in order to get a debate started.
For instance, PO – the RAF is doomed.
Simply put, the RAF do not constitute a Service Arm of the Armed Forces anymore as much as a tool for the operation of other services.
One definition of a Service Arm is the ability to mount operations and hold ground in their own envrionment. The RN can form a beachhead and hold it using RM comando. The Army can to a lesser extent form and airhead with the AAB and para brigades (albeit relying on aerial transport). The RAF, however? Unless the RAF Regiment have para drop training, I can’t see a bunch of pilots an erks in frontline ground combat. This places the RAF airpower more a a secialist tool to be used, rather like heavy armour.
There is historical precedent for this. During WW1 the RNAS and the RFC were merged into a separate Service Arm to better develop and use the newly invented combat aircraft. At the same time the USA formed a similarly separate sercie arm to develop that other invention of WW1 – the tank. The US tank serivice was merged back into the army in the 1920′s, but airforces continued throughout the world because of the possibly mistaken belief that a separate service arm is required for each different environmet (air, land & sea).
So what if we split the RAF between the Army and the RN. Give the Army helo’s and strategic transport and give the RN all the sharp pointy stuff?
This has turned out to be a bit of a wooly rant. I suppose what I’m getting at is that the RAF seem to only have limited strategic capability nowadays, maybe it is time to view airpower as an organic component of the other 2 services?
for the love of god please no-one retort to dave talking about the RAF regt airborne sqn. even the RAF alsatians don’t talk to them!
@ Paul G:
What is it with you and Alsations? Did you get bitten by one as a child? Did a family pet die and leave you grief stricken?
OK, just looked up Nr 2 sqn. The “dozy dozen”? A fine strategic capability they make!