For those of us with short memories, how about a reminder of the emptiest of emptiest.
David Cameron
The leaked letter from Liam Fox, on the subject of Nimrod MRA4 said
Deletion of the Nimrod MR4 will limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime CT (counter terrorism), remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan
Speaking on ITV1′s This Morning programme, on the subject of the leaked letter David Cameron said;
“His fears are unfounded because we are not going to take bad decisions”
That one turned out fine then.
A few other gems
“But as the prime minister, I can absolutely guarantee you we will have well-funded, strong armed forces to defend our country”
“You are the noblest end of public service”
“It’s time for us to rewrite the military covenant to make sure we are doing everything we can”
“We have got tanks that can roll into Russia, we have got too many aeroplanes ready for a dogfight with the Soviet Union air force – but we haven’t got enough helicopters in Afghanistan”
Remind me Prime Minister, how many Chinooks have we ordered
“I am passionately pro-defence, passionately pro our armed forces. I will not take any risks with Britain’s defence”
Liam Fox might not actually agree with that and said so in the House of Commons, speaking on Nimrod
“I recognise this means taking a calculated risk on the capability Nimrod provides.”
More from David Cameron
“While our troops are right now at war in Afghanistan, risking their lives, they must get every penny piece of funding and equipment they need and I will make sure that they do”
Yes, by making many of their comrades redundant, cancelling programmes and stripping out capabilities that just might keep them alive in the future.
Lets examine the Coalition Governments balanced scorecard so far
- Reducing the planned purchase of 22 Chinooks to 12
- Delaying Trident for political reasons that will cost billions
- Cancelling Nimrod MRA4
- Reducing armour and artillery, if reports are to be believed, to the bone
- Reducing surface vessels
- Reducing Tornado
- Withdrawn Harrier GR9′s
- Withdrawing Sentinel
- Slashing allowances and expenses
- Setting up the armed forces for a post Afghanistan change in terms and conditions of service
- Implementing a 2 year pay freeze
- Reducing pensions
- Reducing service personnel by 17,000
- Reducing the MoD Civil Service by 25,000 which will likely result in more work for service personnel
- Removing the External Reference group from reporting on the Military Covenant
- Trying to convince everyone that the SDSR was a considered and balanced review (thats my favourite joke of the year)
And all this before Planning Round 11 kicks in.
The next time anyone says the Conservative Party is ‘strong on defence’ I am going to vomit.
Sorry TD
I will share with you an observation from an internal civil service source passed on to me about this current govt.
‘For the first time in my life I am dealing with ministers who do not care if the systems in place are functioning, only that there is somthing in place that they can point to and say look its all ok we have system, they genuinly don’t give a f*ck if it works or not, just so long as it keeps the daily mail of their back and does not involve spending any money”.
Welcome to the real world.
“‘For the first time in my life I am dealing with ministers who do not care if the systems in place are functioning, only that there is somthing in place that they can point to and say look its all ok we have system, they genuinly don’t give a f*ck if it works or not, just so long as it keeps the daily mail of their back and does not involve spending any money”.”
If thats the case he’s only just been started working with ministers.
“tony Blair is perhaps the politician who best expressed the virtual nature
of contemporary politics. In the run-up to the 2001 election, he wrote a
memo that was later leaked, in which he explained that Labour needed some
‘eye-catching initiatives’ in order to regain public support.
e memo contained one sentence which bears particular contemplation:
‘we also need a far tougher rebuttal or, alternatively, action.’ Blair had
grasped that, in the contemporary political climate, rebuttal is action – or,
at least, as close to action as anyone expects. Presentation and practice have
become blurred. Initiatives can be announced and re-announced – marching
thugs to cash points, deep-cleaning hospitals, cracking down on illegal
immigrants – and, by the time it becomes clear that nothing has changed,
we are on to the next sound bite, the next headline.”
Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan, The Plan.
They go on to trace the phenominon back even further, the firearms act, the dangerous dogs act, the football supporters acts.
None designed to anything more than win the battle of the headlines.
Cameron SHOULD be solving this problem, he isnt, for that, I’m happy to condem him. But any one who says he started is a liar or an ignorant fool.
As for the scorecard.
“Reducing the planned purchase of 22 Chinooks to 12″
What was the delivery date for the 13th airframe frame?
Hell, whats the delivey date for the 1st?
“Reducing armour and artillery, if reports are to be believed, to the bone”
And?
We have 350 active Challenger 2′s, we deployed 120 to Iraq.
Do we really need a 3:1 cover on tanks?
For what war?
I’m more than happy to accept we need 7:1 on infantry, but tanks? Come on. It takes over a month to deploy the tank force, the idea we need 57 tank crews and support staff on 2 hour deployment is pretty weak.
“Reducing Tornado”
True, they should have pulled it.
“Setting up the armed forces for a post Afghanistan change in terms and conditions of service ”
Otherwise known as being honest.
The Tories handling on defence has been honestly woeful.
Which although not great, is a big step up from dishonestly woeful.
Reducing armour and artillery are the least of the problems in that list. Recent scare reports are probably based on these items sitting at the bottom of the spare parts priority list.
#
For me, the most important issue in that list is Trident. If politicians should have learnt any lessons from the last decade of defence planning, surely one of those lessons should be that delaying decisions regarding the purchase of equipment will end up costing you a fortune in the long term.
That’s an expensive decision made purely to avoid a public argument between the Cons and Libs.
I wouldn’t be happy about losing the deterrent myself, but if the choice were between replacing Trident and carrier strike/air mobility/an additional army brigade/etc. then I’d chose to see Trident go.
The decisions on whether to replace Trident -and if so, with what- should have been made years ago already, yet there still hasn’t been a full and proper political debate.
#
Bear in mind also that the next major defence review won’t be scheduled till after the 2015 ellection, but electoral considerations will require a pre-election spending spree across key departments; so expect more fudging of MoD planning and more financial waste in defence spending in a few years time.
IXION
I don’t understand why it is sensible to attribute the loss of capability to the coalition government, facing a £35 billion (or so) black hole if the savings had not been made the final loss of capability would have been even greater, given past MOD cash flow/ delay tactics.
Yes there were cuts, but since cuts were inevitable which others would you suggest?
Also I think we should pay more attention to the US…Secretary for Defense Robert Gates in particular, he has consistently axed (or shortened)projects that are not going to deliver value for money, not necessarily to make cuts but in order to better deploy the remainder of the programme budgets: Comanche; Arapahoe; Seawolf; DDG 1000;EFV etc..
I don’t think this is considered as wasting US tax dollars it’s rather seen as stopping an ongoing waist and replacing it with a more realistic project. The next US bomber being predicated on mature technologies and achievable schedules being an example of this attitude, and not even as cost conscious as the new FIST (fast ,inexpensive, simple, tiny) mantra of some USAF procurement officials.
Balancing the books does allow the possibility of some sanity in future procurement, helped by a new MOD financial director and implemented by Bernard Gray. Having some proper management of budgets allows funds to be deployed for what I feel is the real need, not capability as often quoted but agility and efficiency.
Assets like the F35 are already somewhat technologically outdated, their stealth being a fixed advantage which sensor improvements will steadily reduce.
Surely the important investments are in radar jamming, computer virus delivery, weapons like the XM25 and its successors, electromagnetic munitions and fuel saving technologies such as the US marines are currently using in Sangin..etc..(write your own list)
If we protect current capabilities at the cost of future options we will not just make ourselves more vulnerable but we will increasingly find that we have been outplayed in the resource game.
Terrorists/pirates/insurgencies are currently tying the worlds armed forces into massive expenditures for very slow progress.
I believe the main thrust of military effort must be to achieve goals more efficiently, the supply lines and lead times of current warfare are vulnerable to even modest forces, how would they survive if our opponents had more equal technology and their own special forces? Remember the Russians in Afghanistan and the stinger missile?
BB
“I wouldn’t be happy about losing the deterrent myself, but if the choice were between replacing Trident and carrier strike/air mobility/an additional army brigade/etc. then I’d chose to see Trident go.”
Trident is one of the smallest expenditures, not the biggest.
In all honestly, the Vanguards cost less than the RN Helicopter Fleet.
Ignore the LimpDumbs “costings” they’re a joke.
The idea that “if we just dropped Trident we could have 7 super carriers” is woefully out of touch with reality.
“Yes there were cuts, but since cuts were inevitable which others would you suggest?”
FRES
£30bn procurement and another £30bn life time operating costs.
Its too heavy to be at all airmobile in anything we will have, its too big to be effectivly sea mobile in anything we will have.
“Surely the important investments are in radar jamming, computer virus delivery”
These are “actions” rather “technologies”.
The IDF shut down Syrias air defences before it attacked its nascent nuclear reactor site.
To do this, it spent months, if not years, inflitrating special forces into Syria, who cut the telephone (fibre optic now) lines between the various command, radar and missile sites. Those sites were forced to use radio to talk to each other, Israel listened in, broke the codes, and then confused them all during the attack.
Technology matters, but its not a catch all.
“I believe the main thrust of military effort must be to achieve goals more efficiently, the supply lines and lead times of current warfare are vulnerable to even modest forces”
Again, easy to say, but what are our goals in Afghanistan?
Hi DJ,
These RAF threads seem to be almost “done” so I dare to jump on this one, as a warm-up:
“”…which others would you suggest?”
FRES
£30bn procurement and another £30bn life time operating costs.
Its too heavy to be at all airmobile in anything we will have, its too big to be effectivly sea mobile in anything we will have.”
- leaving out the MBTs and (tracked) IFVs, both quantity and quality/vintage
- how would you see the need for what FRES is supposed to address (SV & UV) under the assumption that we cancel as you suggest?
To put the question in context, I agree that the programme has wasted money colossally, but at the same time I was irked by your earlier choice of words in “not capability as often quoted but agility and efficiency” as the last two flow from the chosen or emphasised capabilities and their combinations (as fielded).
Lets examine the Coalition Governments balanced scorecard so far
* Reducing the planned purchase of 22 Chinooks to 12
* Delaying Trident for political reasons that will cost billions
* Cancelling Nimrod MRA4
* Reducing armour and artillery, if reports are to be believed, to the bone
* Reducing surface vessels
* Reducing Tornado
* Withdrawn Harrier GR9′s
* Withdrawing Sentinel
* Slashing allowances and expenses
* Setting up the armed forces for a post Afghanistan change in terms and conditions of service
* Implementing a 2 year pay freeze
* Reducing pensions
* Reducing service personnel by 17,000
* Reducing the MoD Civil Service by 25,000 which will likely result in more work for service personnel
* Removing the External Reference group from reporting on the Military Covenant
* Trying to convince everyone that the SDSR was a considered and balanced review (thats my favourite joke of the year)
and all this had to be axed just for a 7.5% budget cut!
if anything the list above tells me that Defence was existing in lala land of unfunded procurement and make-believe budget planning if it thought it could carry on pretending to fund those capabilities on the pre-existing budget.
ACC
To be honest, I cant really work out what FRES is supposed to do anymore.
Its original remit, leave base, use high tech sensors to locate enemy, annihilate enemy with indirect fire, back to base for tea and medals, although the right kind of thinking, ignores that the enemy can avoid sensors by not ploughing into you in armoured wedge.
At this point, presumably after the tea boy said, “so what if they dont stand in the open to be massacred?” they went back to the drawing board.
It became a foreign design from the 80′s, not exactly futuristic.
It then became a “light” tank, that was far two heavy to be strategicaly rapid.
With neither the armour to survive an engagement with a modern tank or the firepower to destroy one, so hardly effective.
And although a “system”, one with fewer capability types than the system is replaces.
I’m not really sure what war FRES was designed to fight, but it sure as hell isnt one we’ll be fighting any time in the future.
And yes, I know I’m utterly rejecting RMA for ground forces and simultaniously preaching it for Air and Naval forces, thats because ground has cover to hide in and civillians to hide behind, air has clouds.
If it was up to me
I’d rebuild something along the lines of the CVR(T) family for the majority of our armoured vehicles. Mobility Matters
Then keep a smaller force of Warrior/Challenger sized vehicles for the heavier fighting. Effectivness Matters
That gives us a Mobile force, thats actualy mobile, and an effective force, thats actualy effective.
Lets say Iran absorbs Iraq and looks like its about to invade the rest of the arab world.
If you want to intervene, you need to do so quickly. And that means airdeployment. FRES cant do that, its just cant, an A400M would need to stopover in Greece even if it was only carrying 1 current FRES, and thats assuming it can even get off the ground with one.
Lets say our airdrops blunt the enemy attack and seaborne forces arrive to drive them back.
Again, FRES is at a disadvantage, commerical shipping can carry any load, so its limited weight savings dont matter.
But advancing on a determined, dug in enemy, thats bought the cream of the crop from Russian and Chinese tank plants, its gonna wish it had another 10t of armour and a proper tank weapon.
Hi DominicJ, I wasn’t suggesting that losing the Trident replacement would be a cure all solution or the way towards a 7 carrier fleet; but the savings would allow individual things to be done better… the two new carriers with full air wings, the purchase of all 22 Chinooks for example.
—————-
This is a link to a BBC report from a little while ago, at the arse-end of the Labour government, just to remind you all what the red teams proposals for defence were.
[Mr Fox said the country was in debt and was now "having our national security cut as a consequence".]
The Labour proposals seemed quite harsh not so long ago; I wonder, if they had won the election how quickly would they have had to expand the defence cuts that they had previously outlined.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8413135.stm
DominicJ
Sorry if I was confusing, I didn’t mean to imply virus delivery and radar jamming were technologies although they do require same. For technologies in that context just read all those that save fuel. Nor do I mean to imply focus resources solely through technologies. It’s the more efficient and more agile nature of the armed forces both in delivery and support
I was that I was trying to highlight.
This is not a comment on the service personnel, rather on the almost 1940s style of logistics which often starts in the country of origin and has a massive tail. Granted that there is increasing use of contractors for supplies and services.. laundry, security ?? But there is still an institutional response that it is too risky to use the local economy and suppliers for provisioning, this may have truths but it is also risky not to address the local economy when it can be a way of controlling/shaping the “human topography”.
I don’t think the goal in Afghanistan is fixed, nor do I think it can afford to be, if things go well then additional strengthening objectives can be added to the “goal” if things go badly it may be that something less than a disaster will suffice.
We already know that our goals are expressed now in terms of Afghan capabilities and reconstruction, these are the characteristics of such a conflict that we are learning to accept. For the foreseeable future we are stuck with the fact that you cannot win against the people, only with them (this includes those in the area of conflict and at home).
My central point is that the current imbalance of resource requirements between the combatants is unsustainable (for us), water purifying, fuel saving, energy generating products/technologies that are being developed for the theatre potentially have a double contribution in reversing this imbalance.
Firstly they ease the cost of sustaining forces at the front line where true costs for fuel (possibly flown the last leg) are as much as 300 times that back in the UK/US.
Secondly these are products/technologies that can possibly be transferred into the Afghan economy with major cultural changes- such as with mobile phones being introduced and now delivering mobile banking and challenging corruption in army commanders.(yes insurgents can use them and yes they can also, in turn, be monitored)
I think one can make the same claim for some of the new offensive weapons that are being developed, low yield precision munitions have set a standard for cost effectiveness, despite their acquisition costs, they have reduced (so we are told )the need for numbers of AS90s . From my perspective they have also reduced the cost of delivering ammunition supplies to the front line and the many related costs.
The use of relatively low (unit) cost viruses and EM weapons to tackle more technological forces (than are being met at present) follows the same logic, match resource expenditure as much as possible with your opponent or better it if you can
ArmChairCivvy
My exact point and challenge is to the capability (concept) from which things “flow”, should we consider the potential to achieve a result or the actual and sustainable ability? So which would you rather enhance? capability through the (acknowledged competent) crystal ball of threat perception or ability through developing efficiencies? For my mind at least a large part of the effort should be in devoted to efficiencies that reduce the cost of deploying the capability.
Reverse engineering this is the idea that there are many capabilities we have forgone when they were available as cheap abilities.. black hawk helicopters, cheap Chinooks, etc.. because they didn’t meet a capability need. They were a very good deal and they could have been moulded to an operational need but the concept got in the way.
I am bit puzzled, I though FRES SV was the weight and size it has become down to lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan against IED’s and that ASCOD sized platform was the lightest you could get with reasonable blast protection.
Wasn’t the original plan for something in the same weight class as a Stryker ~ 20 tonnes rather than ~42 tonnes of FRES SV?
Out of interest does anyone know if the FRES SV demonstrator, which appears to be going to be fitted with a Lockhead Martin UK built turret will straight away be built with 40 mm CTWS cannon, or if LM UK will start off with a 30 mm bushmaster before integrating the CTWS at a later date?
Some of the potential wasted billions on the Trident replacement could be saved by ordering Astute 8 to keep Barrow in work and skills current.
I know spending money to save money, bonkers I know.
@ ACC re FRES and airmobilty
This is red herring. The old Saxon based mech’ battalions had 50 or so Saxon. If they had to be air lifted in theatre using C17 if all were available it would take about 3 days or so. If you have 3 battalions (a pure infantry brigade) to move that is more than the week. You need a brigade to do anything. And is just moving the vehicles. “We” would struggle to deploy a para battalion in light infantry role with the air lifters we have. Its all smoke and mirrors. Having these vehicles drive off these planes shooting blanks is an air show stunt.
Consider that the C17 can lift an M1Ax. It can’t land the tank tactically only on a really good long runway. And then the plane will have to spend a week in dry dock having its airframe x-rayed for possible stress fractures.
I week or two back I visited my father and he was watching a programme on Discovery. The chap on the programme said the Chinook can carry a Land Rover. My dad was amazed. I pointed out that yes it is good that a multi-million pound helicopter that costs more than Land Rover to buy to run for an hour is really good.
Sorry using aircraft to move vehicles about is silly. Especially if it is being used to show how useful the aircraft is………
(Unless you are a bomb disposal team working in a hazardous area…….)
David Cameron is Michael Foot wearing Boden. If you are nice to everybody/appeal to their better nature/”hello sun, hello clouds” etc. then you won’t need all those nasty war toys. Hence the DFID budget and rolling over to the Chinese/Russians/Indians/Brazilians at every opportunity.
We are re-living the 60′s except for East of Suez read East of Dover. This govt.’s strategy seems to be: see what the French have and have x% less. It will be hard, if not impossible, to recover from the reduction to Belgium with nukes.
Re. capabilities. Needs do exist/have existed but we almost always defer for something “better” (more expensive and late or never delivered). I think that large UAVs are just Duncan Sandys’ marvellous missiles again. Are other nations wrong in building combat aircraft and carriers? Were they wrong in 1957? Helicopters, electronic warfare, smart weapons – all neglected/ignored for years and their absence manages to surprise not only the media but also the MoD!
I’ve just finished reading Damien Burke’s TSR.2 book and little has changed – except perhaps that the politicians are even less well-informed and the public are even deeper asleep.
Tubby
You’ve alsmost got it. FRES was supposed to be this all seeing uper weapon that identified the enemy at long range and destroyed him moments after.
The idea that it would drive along mine laden roads was well out of scope.
Its like the RAF designing a new Strategic Transport, halfway through deciding it needs a dog fighter and trying to make the transport fit the new hole.
“Wasn’t the original plan for something in the same weight class as a Stryker ~ 20 tonnes rather than ~42 tonnes of FRES SV?”
Pretty much
Danatt got all confused recenty and complained he wanted Stryker not ASCOD, although to be fair, the Taliban only has to imagine a minefield and he wants to order soldiers to drive landrovers through it.
The concept is broken, it needs to be cancelled and we need to go back to the drawing board.
X
The CVR(T) was, in my understanding, designed for just that role, three could be carried by a heavy airlifter and you’d only need a couple of dozen to beat the piss out of any uppity natives, or at least hold bases until the heavy stuff could be shipped in.
Admitadly they are a 6th of the weight of a tank.
Was that just a pie in the sky dream?
Hi DJ @ 12:39,
So much good stuff has come up while I was busy with something else!
Thank you for your exhaustive answer. As we are clearly on the same frequency, maybe we should form Team 1 for the next (Army) debate.
x picked up on the missing aspect (that was in your original, air-portability – not air-mobility, which is within theatre). I can’t invite all of us onto the team, though, as from what I remember x and I are often on opposing sides.
x I agree the air transport fleet should be there to transport rapid reaction air assault formations with nothing heavier than oscelot. The army is as myopic about heavy tanks warfare as the air force is about fast jets. FRES is IMO an even greater disaster than nimrod the army has tried to make something high tech when it had no need to be. Its cost lives they try to blame everyone other than themselves they’ve spend a billion pound produced nothing other than pointless concepts only suitable to fighting the russian hoards. The best way to avoid IED’s is to use helicopters and intelligence. The armys senior officers have a mighty big case to answer for the structures capabilities and operations it has created/involved in over the last 10 years.
As for trident I think it has outlived its usefulness. I would accept a significantly reduced capability in this area with the implications that brings if it means more money is given to the conventional forces. it is used as an excuse to pretend politicians are strong on defence when they haven’t got a clue and don’t give a dam.
Hi RW @ 1:03,
RE ” For my mind at least a large part of the effort should be in devoted to efficiencies that reduce the cost of deploying the capability.
Reverse engineering this is the idea that there are many capabilities we have forgone when they were available as cheap abilities.. black hawk helicopters, cheap Chinooks, etc.. because they didn’t meet a capability need. They were a very good deal and they could have been moulded to an operational need but the concept got in the way.”
Now I understand better, and the capability term seems to be used (not by you) in a caveman 1:1 mapping way, disguised as “a concept”. Capabilities of course overlap, given the theatre, some are more easily fielded than others. Given the opposition, and those restrictions (physical, or cost)you can then combine what you have. Efficiencies come in through the R&D train, ie. very slowly, but just sticking to massive numbers of “yesterday’s wars’ kit” will stop them coming through altogether, due to the binding overall cost constraint.
This may sound a bit semantic, but would do away with the need to “Reverse engineering this is the idea”.
Telegraph just recently quoted as the source for a crazy story the Capability Management of XYZ. I looked in the Abbey Wood org. chart. Non-such there (it shouldn’t be there either; it should reside above that “executing” organisation, in the MoD, because some of the overlap is between the services) but is nowhere (?) to be found.
In short, a lot to do here!
FRES as it was originally planned has been long dead. The idea of light/medium AFVs that can be rapidly deployed by air and use speed and situational awareness to avoid getting hit has fallen totally out of favour after experience with RPGs and IEDs.
What has proven itself in both Iraq and though on a smaller scale is that heavier AFVs still have a major impact in all types of land combat.
The Army needs to re-equip many of its mechanised/Armoured Infantry units and its Recce Regiments. The ASCOD though not everybody’s cup of tes is a single platform that can fullfill 90% of the roles required.
However given the funding issues now and in future, as all Governments will try to get away with spending as little on defence as they can get away with, I can see th good old FV432 series still being around in 2030 and the Army’s new “Flexible” Brigades operating a mish mash of platforms.
All three Armed Forces are going to have to fight just to keep what they already have. This is going to become even more an issue post Afghanistan where they will no longer be in the spot light. Expect wholesale disposal of the majority of the kit out there with no replacement I am not just talking of that bought through UOR.
THe aspiration to be able to mount a Brigade style operation will be just that. In all probability we will not elect to commit to this size of operation again, concentrating more on Battalion battlegroups, taylored for individual short term missions. Barrel scraping will be required for anything else.
I just cannot see any possibility of funding being increased by a meaningful amount in the future so increasing costs will cause the continued reduction in our Armed Forces throught attrition.
By 2025 the RAF will be at a bare minimum size, the Army will be in a similar boat with equipment required for operations pooled between units and the Navy will still be fighting off reductions and trying to save the second CVF and maintain its planned 19 Destroyers and Frigates. But Tridents replacement will still be underway, sucking the lifeblood out of the budget as the Treasury rubs its hands.
Hi x @ 1:56,
RE “Some of the potential wasted billions on the Trident replacement could be saved by ordering Astute 8″
- n:o 7 was already down to the (later) timing of the shared launch compartment (US; available to UK) and its availability
- any delay, and your wish might come true!
Wow the thread is wandering all over the place a bit, so where to begin…..
1. New govt’s record – crap, but please, who expected any different ? However the main stream press will not call them out on it, because they don’t care. Generally the general public don’t care either, which gives HMG the room to maneuver that they love to play with.
2. Past Govt grew the defence deficit. For sure, they also spewed plenty of rhetoric about being at war and doing nothing about it with respect to correct / adequate funding.
3. No point at all in pointing at Gates and US budget cuts. Firstly because even with the relatively huge cuts they are looking for, they will still have the biggest, best funded, most capable, most combat hardened / experienced forces in the world. So, sure they are doing better at making hard decisions, but to be honest they have more room to tinker with this stuff. Also don’t forget, with the massive expansion of the US armed forces and 10 years at war, the elephant in the room for the US is medicare and pensions – personnel costs; and if they don’t do something about them, then cutting a version of JSF, the EFV and other stuff is not going to help them.
4. Modern politics is in general a sham, its Rome all over again, just make sure you can give the populace bread and public games, while maintaining a functioning bureaucracy. So we must look at the wider social issues and the holistic view of British society. Governments job however is to think above the average Jo on the street, to take issue on their behalf. So while the general population may have very little interest in defence of the realm, it is HMG’s job to be interested. Which is of course, why we do not have a full referendum on every issue. However the fact that commentors on this and other blogs seem to do a better job than mainstream media of holding politicians to account is a very sad state of affairs. When I was a very youn Naval junior rating in the early 80′s, my mess mates would take the piss out of me for buying the Observer every sunday – but that was true investigative journalism, and Ministers hypocracy would be splashed over double page spreads for all to see. Is really true that such reporting would no longer sell enough copies to generate the add revenue ?
5. I save my final lambasting for a whole generation of the most senior military officers. Those who have held flag rank and above since the last SDR. The military is supposed to be apolitical, but the most senior officers have a duty to look after all the men and women under their command. Personally I believe that sometimes they must discharge that duty by taking the offensive, not against each other, but as a unified front against their political masters. Perhaps that means very publicly throwing ones self on ones sword, and then really savaging the Govt. once retired (I presume if a Chief of Staff disagrees publicly with HMG they might be asked to retire, but would retain pension and benefits!).
Both the politicians and the senior military leaders need to inject some honesty and some integrity into their approach; meanwhile I will simply finish with: “I told you so….”
Oh, yes, and:
“We’re all doomed I tell ya, dooooomed…”
Hi x @ 2:13,
All you say is absolutely bang on.
RE “Consider that the C17 can lift an M1Ax.” The Americans ( E. Shinsheki in charge of the studies, not of the whole of the Army yet) looked at deploying a meaningful force by air to a different continent. The worry was that once they were there, due to the weight of the equipment, they would only equate to a force (no matter how elite) of light infantry. One of the initiatives was to down-gun the M1 to reduce weight, compensate for the loss of fire power with rockets that could be lased onto the target by forward deployed infantry etc. Didn’t get anywhere; the Germans are the only ones (not counting the 18.5 t BMD “special”) who have come up with armoured types to cover all the essential functions for a brigade/ division, at a unit weight/ size that can realistically be airlifted. They don’t absorb the fixed cost, but plan on commercially chartered 747s, with special floor elements to spread the weight of 7(!) units lifted at a time.
Whoops, sorry all, think I dropped a booboo.
FRES was supposed to be transportable by A400m/C17 around the world, not by chinook around the battlefield.
Regardless of the word I used, I meant the former, not the latter.
Mark
“I agree the air transport fleet should be there to transport rapid reaction air assault formations with nothing heavier than oscelot.”
But light armour is awesome.
It can get to where no one expects it, and run riot in the face of infantry without anti tank kit.
During the First Indo-Pak War, a small unit of M5 tanks broke through a well defended mountain pass, no one thought to bring Anti Tank weapons that high.
By the time they were actualy used in the Falklands, the deal was pretty much sealed, but the light tanks deployed certainly lowered the cost for us. Pretty much the same as India, the enemy simply lacked weapons capable of destroying the tanks, which were picking off their support weapons whenever they fired.
Hi ChrisW @2:29,
I must admit that the first time I read about TSR2 was in learning about project management, and the (on this site famous) ‘sunk costs’ concept.
RE ” just finished reading Damien Burke’s TSR.2 book” I would very much recommend pages 232-242 by J. Hamilton-Paterson, published last year. With first hand accounts (no more restricted by OpSec) it establishes how a good technical execution of a project can lose its value (relative to the costs still to be incurred after the first flight)when operating conditions change.
It is also a good example for divorcing a “capability” from a platform-specific view, because the first one is a more relative measure, fully accounting for (evolving/ already evolved) counter-measures.
The problem with CVRT in the Falklands was the Infantry/Marine commanders had never worked with them and had no idea of it capabilities. They now all know how good the vehicle and the 30mm RADEN is.
Trident can anyone really believe GB would ever launch an ICBM with multiple re-entry warhead at anyone. We may however launch a cruise missile type warhead. The problem with Trident is its always going to be the sledgehammer to crack a nut option except for global war. Seven Astute platforms with one or two nuclear warhead cruise missiles are a greater deterrent to those rogue states that know we would never retaliate with Trident but a one missile surgical strike is another matter.
I think it’s fair to wait with “records” over the current government until late summer, when the Green Paper of Peter Luff has experienced detail and has matured to a White Paper.
If the Defence Reform unit delivers an complete overhaul of the MoD and especially it’s Acquisition complex, then my thumb goes up.
If it’s about making “adjustments” without finding some large systematic errors, my thumb goes down.
If the former would be the case, this would be by any measure an astonishing speed for a governement then only slighly more than one year in office.
Also, the new Governement cuts the Defence budget by 8% in the worst financial situation in a 100 years. The preceding governement cut defence 1998 with the SDR by 3% when the economy was growing 4% annually. Any large procurement project since then has been screwed up. It can only get better.
TD and it’s various Contributors and Commenters have made strides in bringing a focused and creative discussion about defence together. It has not yet matured into a complete view, but expect this to happen. I think constantly ranting about the evil politicians is hampering the standing this website has attained. We have yet to provide a better picture.
DominicJ
I have not problem with light armour in the cvrt class but we wont have any of them left dont forget we are replacing a 10t tank with a 42t one so much for flexible deployable ect ect. IEDs are clouding judgements heavy armour is just treating the symptoms not the route cause TD did a gd piece on cvrt/fres scout not sure where it is now though.
Jimsw I agree with you trident is for russian and chinese benefit only make the warhead an air launch option too also upgrade the T45 to ABMD as part of the deal.
@Mark
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/03/fres-scout-%E2%80%93-spot-the-difference/
@McZ
Thanks for the compliment. I make no apologies though for the odd ranting post about politicians of any persuasion, exposing the difference between their words and deeds. Think Defence is not an extension of the MoD, it is not a think tank being paid a commission to produce a learned article and it is no ones day job so I think allowances can be made!
I would repeat, if anyone wants to contribute they are more than welcome
We should be under no illusion. The present Conservative-led coalition is nothing more than an alternative socialist government. They have less experience than Labour, but are equally dishonest and, as we appear to limp towards a double-dip downturn, are likely to prove equally incompetent. Those of us who voted for change have been sold a pup. Cameron is a younger version of Blair while Osborne is a younger version of Brown. Clegg and Cable are men without principle or a mandate from voters. What we wanted was honest politicians who made simple promises and then kept them. Worse still, the hidden Conservative agenda was increased taxation as well as reduced expenditure, with the armed forces bearing the brunt of the cuts.
What we desperately need is a new type of politician, instead of these career politicians whose only aim is power for its own sake. We need men and women with experience of the real world, with integrity and principle, with common-sense as much as intelligence. What we have now is no better than what we had before. I fully expect the coalition to collapse within months as inflation, interest rates, home repossessions and unemployment all rise. I want Cameron and his ilk out ASAP and a proper right wing alternative to bring hope back to this battered nation.
TD in your defence I think maybe McZ was talking about my last rant about the politicians ???
However, I feel it does not matter how good the Defence Reform Unit is, or how good a job it does. Without a national ‘grand strategy’ from which foreign policy, security policy, military (defence) policy and so on can flow, providing a clear vision of what we want to be able to do, how it is to be funded appropriately; then reforming defence procurement, whilst a good thing to do in its own write, will still be shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
This thread in places has drifted into the size, shape and weight of armoured vehicles, and I have written technical capability focused articles for the site, and am as guilty as anyone where it comes to fantasy fleets (be that fleets of ships, planes, or AFV’s) but that is because I don’t feel qualified to tackle the deep political issues. Jedibeeftrix takes a good shot at tackle the strategic / political issues on his blog, however I am not confident in writing a purely political article, nor do I really think this would be the venue to post it.
In the end, I was so disillusioned with UK politics, and the state / potential state of the nation, I voted with my feet and moved to Canada (politics here are just as mediocre in many respects, but there are other advantages!) but I am still a British citizen, and thus occasionally like to rant about politics being the root of all (defence) evil….
I feel better now.
Monty, nice to see you again. Its good to have a bloody good rant.
I think I need to do a post on containers, TD has been a bit heated this last few weeks
Can I beg to respectfully disagree with you Monty that Defence is bearing the brunt of the cuts. If you are like me and work in one of those areas getting cut in excess of 20% and having to worry about your job you might envy even with the procurement black hole to fill the 7.5% cuts of defence.
As what has gone, while I think it is crying shame, there are only a few areas IMO which leave real gaps in the UK’s ability to defend itself, most of the impact has been to make it virtually impossible for the UK to operate in the international level. To be honest it might have been more honest if the NSC decided to go with a defensive posture and adjusted our forces accordingly rather than underfunding the “adaptive” posture in a vain effort to retain international clout!
@ DomJ
Yes I know that CVR(T) was designed for that role. A while back I spent a good few weeks mulling over helicopter warfare. Seeing what could be stuffed into what airframe. How far said what airframe could go exactly. Even bought a rather odd American book called Air-Mech-Strike which was all about shoving vehicles into helicopters. The more I looked the less convinced I became. In an alternative world I can imagine a ZSU gunner smiling with glee as Chinook plods across the sky with 8 tons of vehicle underslung. I will give you that in Kosovo moving vehicles like that may have been successful. But I think that has to be qualified very carefully. That was more a “police action” for the ground forces. I think if push had come to shove T72 trumps Scimitar.
And we mustn’t forget the wonderful Soviet sponsored actions in Africa with the wonderful Tonka like ASU57 being lifted to the other end of a mountain pass. But again it isn’t high end warfare. So…….
@ ACC
Yes I love the German Heer Wiesel and CH53 formations. As I have explained above I am not sure whether the idea would have worked. (That is me just being me.) I tend to think that instead of trying to run expensive CH53 they would have had better value just buying more smaller helicopters with TOW. The CH53 is big enough to carry a Bv I used to have flights of fancy about RN LPH big enough to carry a squadrom of CH53. But as I said I struggle with the idea of helicopter warfare. (Just me being me……)
@ ACC
Yes I know Astute 7 was bought for exactly the reason I stated. From my readings on submarines it appears they are best ordered in multiples of 4 due to their complexity. I know the R Polaris boats should originally have been 5 in number just to ensure one was at sea. The RN with the V boats (plus modern tech) do well to keep one at sea all the time then. I will confess I haven’t checked on the USN “boomer” programme for a while. I am just concerned that the V-boat replacement programme will get pushed further back. I just get the feeling BAE will spend a lot of time and money reinventing the wheel again.
I’d like to hear some suggestions on how the budget should have been balanced to avoid defense cuts. Cut pensions? Healthcare?
Hi x,
I’ll get the nasty one in first:
“Yes I know Astute 7 was bought for exactly the reason I stated. From my readings on submarines it appears they are best ordered in multiples of 4 due to their complexity”
- no, it is just the drum beat, add one attack beast in the row, and then we can build the next x in number, around the American launch block, when it is available;
It almost sounded like a Cons/ LibDem coalition negotiation result that the number of tubes were fewer than before – a white dove flying out of the non-existent launch tube, kind of thing
i’m going for a massive thread wander, but it’s friday and i’m feeling naughty!!!!
@x if your buying helicopter books may i recommend low level hell, it’s about an OH-6 pilot in vietnam he was the “bait” flying low to flush out charlie so the cobras overhead could smoke them, he was downed 6 (six) times although technically one was when he crashed into a tree flying low level!!!!
one action resulted in a military cross being awarded the next day, a great book with no hint “get me i am great” in it
thread deviation over
Hi Paul G,
RE “about an OH-6″
- not at all, an era is over
- I posted about what happened when that particular utility (not as in UH- xz) was over, ref: the Danish org for supporting helos for very different missions
Hi x @ 8:04,
RE “Yes I love the German Heer Wiesel and CH53 formations”
I am not sure that these two tally up as in the early deployment (to theatre).
- you get the formation in first
- once it is there, you go through the trouble of getting those Big Beasts there
- now, depending on where you are going to, they might even ‘ferry’ there
But as for the effects, as soon as “you land” there, they are ready to fight any threat
Does anyone have a clue as to what is going in connection with the British Army’s future equipment plans? In a “Telegraph” article that appeared recently, and which was headed “Army’s 400 tanks may be cut to 50”, the following points were made:
That the Army was set to lose its ability to fight large scale tanks battles under radical plans being drawn up to slash its fleet of armoured vehicles.
That the plan was to axe more than 3,000 vehicles as part of government enforced cuts under the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
That under the plans the 400 strong fleet of Challenger 2 main battle tanks could be reduced to as little as little as 50 tanks, enough to equip just one regiment.
That within the next 18 months, 1,400 armoured personnel carriers, along with 1,200 CVRT light tanks, would be sold off or scrapped. Hundreds of Warriors were to be put in storage with the force reduced from 800 to a maximum of 270 vehicles that would be upgraded in £800 million programme.
That the Army was also being forced to shed its mine protected vehicles that were introduced as Urgent Operational Requirements for Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army was not expected to include the 300 Mastiff, 177 Ridgback and around 100 Warthogs in its core equipment programme, meaning that they would be axed. The cuts would mean that 34 out of the Army’s 36 infantry battalions would be in what is known as the “light role” without armour protection.
However, after the 2015 exit from Helmand the Army hoped that the government would provide the cash to reconstitute its armour by agreeing to the estimated £5 billion vital Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) programme that would produce about 2,000 advanced combat vehicles.
However, to contrast with this, in Jane’s “Defence Weekly” there appears to an article suggesting that ambitions to develop a family of medium-weight armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) for the British Army “are effectively at an end”, according to senior UK Ministry sources. (I don’t subscribe to Jane’s, therefore got only the first few words of the article). However, it would seem to suggest that FRES is dead!
So where the hell are we now? (Sorry to divert the thread somewhat but there has been little on the Army for a long while)
Hi Mike W,
Sometimes I feel that we are the shield, where these “weak” signals are being bounced off, to gauge the early reaction.
As if, to see what might be the “front page news” when it is then announced!
@ ACC
I just bang this stuff out at pace. I do trip more often than not. And you aren’t being nasty no way near.
As for Astute we are talking at cross purposes. I now see what you are saying. I will say again that I am just concerned about a hole appearing in the submarine building programme. And that it may pay out in the future depending on how the Trident/Vanguard/American programmes play out to buy an extra hull.
@ PG
Thanks for the recommendation.
Do you suffer from long term memory loss? Chumbawumba sang about Tony Blair.
Cameron wants to be the heir to Blair, Rest my case.
Sadly politicians are now picked on their looks & ability to spin.
Ugly, bald , but capable no longer get to stand.
Since he’s so trigger/axe happy to cut funding, soon it seems the only way we’ll get much needed equipment to theatre is via this method;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-12146552
lol sorry, bad joke.
Really is foul stuff to read his quotes… the slimey git >:C
It is Friday night, so
RE ” Chumbawumba sang about “, but ,
who sang about “politicians’ funeral pyre”??
Sorry about the diversion!
It was D:Ream who sang “Things can only get better.”
Brian Cox, the face of popular science on Al Beeb, played the keyboards. Personally I would expect more from a particle physicist; now X-ray astronomers they are a dodgy bunch, sell their souls (if they had one) for project funding.
Thanks x,
“It was D:Ream who sang “Things can only get better.”