“I will not take any risks with Britain’s defence”
Said David Cameron
“It has removed a capability and increases the risks. We have taken more risks.”
Said Ursula Brennan, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence.
Think DefenceUK Defence Issues and the odd container or two
See your risk and raise you a “Defence as a whole must come out in a stronger position.”
Look, it is not too difficult.
We are building two super-carriers in Scotland because a bunch of Scottish lawyers got a failed Scottish bank to get inept Scottish politicians to fall for it. That represents is a big chunk of a smaller [defence] pot but we are stuck with it.
Scrapping Nimrod is looking wiser by the day – save for the loss of ISTAR/SAR – but FRES and EuroTurkey are still in place (see above). We haven’t got the money, the Liberal-Democrats have to be bought-off, so what are we to do….
Oops: Carriers aren’t funded by RBS (are they). Ignore the rant my Northern British cousins, but the point is the money is allocated until 2015 and there ain’t gonna’ be any more. LET-IT-GO!
Define “Britain’s Defence”.
It seems quite separate from “any foreign war of oppurtunity or discretion that we, or our allies, decide we will stick our size 10′s into”.
In this respect, Britian’s defence can be directly compared to Belgium’s or Sweden’s defence. Just saying.
“I will not take any risks with Britain’s defence”
This was a very silly thing to say. Of course he’s going to take risks with Britain’s defence. Trading off risks and rewards is an inevitable part of government. (Of life, even.) At some point you have to say “the added security we get from this particular item is not worth the money it will cost”.
I am more than a bit concerned about the numbers of aircrew.
From what i’ve read, 1/4 of the new class are being cut.
100 out of 400 are the figures quoted.
I can understand the reasoning, i mean there’s no point in having lot’s of pilot’s with no aircraft to fly.
This is in addition to the Joint Force Harrier pilots & MRA4 aircrew that are now surpluss to requirements as the aircraft are either being retired or have been scrapped.
I also read that will leave the RAF with 210 quailified fast jet pilots & navigators.
If this is correct, then to me, that looks like a very, very small core of people.
Surely with the position the defence budget is clearly in, it is time to review again the key Revenue & Capital “elephants in the room”, before the whole of the armed forces are compromised -
1. The number of Infantry Batallions/Marine Commandos and Armoured Regiments – 7 Brigades cannot justify more than 40 formations in total
2. The need to procure SSBNs – who exactly is Britain proposing to “detter” on it’s own that would require SSBNs. If you want to keep the skills + the warheads, fine, then procure 3 more Astutes, 100 Tomahawks (or alternate cruise missile) and 100 UK warheads. Cheaper, naval capabilities enhanced and just as politically credible….
Cameron’s escape clause is that he can say he is refering only to defence of the British Isles in which case he can get away with it but it does sort of blow his other statements about being a force for good in the world out of the water. But we shouldn’t get our hopes up that things will get better after 2015. If things stay as they are I think we will have won a major battle. Prior to the SDSR I got shot down for suggesting the RAF might be reduced to 10 FJ Squadrons, well by 2017 we will have only 6!
The U.S. deficit, is by all accounts larger, in both relative and absolute terms than that of the UK; and yet:
The President has just submitted a multi-trillion dollar budget for the next Fiscal period including $553 billion in the base defense budget and $117.6 billion in the overseas contingency operations.
Just to re-iterate, they have a bigger deficit, and worse unemployment – yes I know they also have a much greater pot from which to pour, but relatively speaking, is this the difference between a country which actually acts like its at war, and one which merely pumps out the rhetoric ?
Nigel, there are plenty of elephants in the room, the place is chock full of them
CVF, Type 26, Trident, Army numbers etc etc
Oh and don’t forget, under the PM’s “Big Society” BS not only will your local library be handed over to unpaid (and untrained, and acknowledgeable ?) volunteers to run, we could bin most of the army and have local militias, you know just like we did in the 1800′s………
Nigel
Your bang on the largest portion of the defence budget is spent on wages how the army is justifying keeping 100K soldier to maintain just 6K in afghan or indeed maintaining cold war level nuclear forces is beyond me especially when the other services and vital home land defence capabilities are being gutted to pay for it.
Mark ref: “indeed maintaining cold war level nuclear forces”
Because that is a political power and prestige thing. Which PM do you think is going to emasculate the office of the PM by getting rid of nukes, and therefore removing us from the exclusive club, and probably loosing all reason for retaining a seat on the UNSC.
Similarly, buying next gen boomers straight from USA or France, is also a political thing – “nuclear sovereignty” – they would come out with all the hoary old cack about security and why the deterrent sub has to be built in Barrow in Furness.
However as many would point out, the cost of the deterrent is actually rather small when you look at the bigger picture.
As to 6K squaddies in Afghanistan – again its political BS; PM does not want to loose face by admitting that we could save a lot of money by just pulling out immediately. That is admitting to our allies just how broke we are. Yes of course there would be operational level complexities and our allies in place would not be happy with us, but surely that is just another “tough decision” on the same level as Nimrod ?
O’h dear me.all was well with the RAF when the RN was being decimated helped along by them trying to kill off the FAA alltogether by successfully lobbying for the Harrier to be scrapped.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost and the ‘chaps’ don’t like it.
Bye the way TD I realise you are biased but why is T26 a ‘white elephant’ in your opinion.Also it is now known as the Global combat Frigate/Ship.
It can’t be any worse than the black hole that is Eurofighter.
Our nuclear deterrent is awesome. Vanguards are world class. Trident is a super missile; come on it can chuck something the size of a car 7,5000 miles and hit a circle 150m in circumference. Came in on time and on budget. Costs £1bn year to run of which only £250m goes on the V-boats. Awesome, awesome, awe———some system. What is there not to like?
The big test for Trident will come if Iran gets the bomb or Pakistan collapses. But you say there is a difference between having a bomb and delivering it. And you are right. But if you read anything about deterrence (and I have read an an awful lot about deterrence, God help me) reality rarely if ever enters the equation. The public will demand we keep the system to protect them; the public like the politicians they vote in no little about the realities of defence. It is all about perception. Imagine if Churchill had stripped London of its AAA; the latter did little if any real practical good, but in terms of morale it was very, very important.
Deterrence doesn’t deter the crazies; it is there to persuade the more reasonable elements who the crazies depend on.
And then there is game theory………
For what it costs Trident is a bargain. But as I said I have read way, way too much about deterrence.
The national mood is anti war. So it was in 1938. Just because Blair was (sorry cannot think of anything polite to say).
Future wars we may not choose, they may get thrust on us.
What if the trouble in North Africa leads to threats to Cyprus & Gibraltar?
The fallout from the credit crunch could lead to trouble around 2015-20.
If climate change is real it will make the world more unstable.
This is a time for rearmament, not cuts.
Cut Eu contributions, foreign aid, management consultants, pc non jobs instead.
Mike, I dont think I am biased at all. In fact I try very hard to remain balanced but I mentioned the T26 because it is a future programme that we can ill afford, will likely have a dubious capability for an inflated price
@ TD
Come on everybody who posts here knows you are pro-Euro and pro-RAF. Heck I bet you even think the ARP warden should have got a bigger part in Dad’s Army.
(Only jokin’ of course.)
I am concerned about the flight crew cuts because of who is being cut…..
“Up to 20 trainee fast jet pilots, 30 helicopter pilots and 50 air transport pilots will be axed, The Daily Telegraph understands.”
So the pilots the Army depends on are being cut. I suppose the argument is that if you can fly fast jet now later in your career you can fly something slower.
“. . . The Daily Telegraph understands.”
Well there’s an oxymoron if every I’ve seen one…
Simples, Less planes mean less pilots
I understand from the raw published figurs RAF been overpiloted for years.
Jed
Said it before, say it again the US defence policy will cripple it faster than it thinks. If I was enemy of US I would be cheering virtually every defence purchase it announces at the moment. Apparantly even its carriers are now carrying less and less planes due to ‘costs’. F22 B2 have got them so scared future bomber likley to very low risk. us defence spending 23% annual budget according to BBC, I find that a very hard to believe.
WE are not going to return to UK pre WW1 scenario where 25% govt annual budget spent on the RN.
All
Basically we are going to have to go back to square one, our current millitary model is unsustainable,(if our aim is to have effective defence / power projection in future).
Of course we are ok to carry on as is, if we are just looking to ‘maintain capabilities’ on paper etc until such time as (with any luck) a ‘proper war’ starts, with ‘proper enemies’ (but only of a size and type and in a scenario in which we can take them on our own).
(See posts about BAE pulling out of uk land armour), where are we going to get our soverign capability to make armoured vehicles now?
I think the current SDR etc is a weapons grade cluster f*ck. But it starts fom the position that there is no more money for bespoke carbon nano gegaws, for bespoke systems etc. Or for (in reality) carriers f 35s etc etc. WHY are we buying F35? an anyone tell me what it does (cariers aside) that the RAF realy actualy needs, not wants in order to keep up with the Joneses?
Army numbers are not sustainable, if they struggle to keep 6% on active service then the system is just plain wrong no privite sector busines swould accept sucha backroom – front end ratio.
So no defence is not safe in ‘ Call me dave’s hand’s', but all he is doing is recognising current realities.
Ixion, I am with you right up to the last line:
“So no defence is not safe in ‘ Call me dave’s hand’s’, but all he is doing is recognising current realities.”
It is not safe in any of the current crop of politicians hands. Politics by public opinion and sound bite does not allow long horizon, strategic decisions to be made. What is required are politicians with the balls to lay out a position and stick to it, and if that position includes messages like “defence of UK interests comes before feeding the rest of the worlds poor” then if that party wins the vote, it knows it has a mandate to cut international aid and fund defence properly.
If that party is not voted in, then the one that is knows it can reduce defence of the UK to Coast Guard and militia, and happily fund NGO’s and feed the worlds starving millions.
However, all UK politics is middle of the road dross. Very little differentiation, manage by committee of unelected advisers, pork barrel projects for MP’s in “dodgy” seats and rule by media sound bite. Not an inch of charisma or back bone in any of them….
“Rant mode off” – in Cryton voice
Jed, X, I take both of your points around the politics and hence my suggestion that we not dump nukes, but instead cut our force to something that still allows the UK to stay in the nuclear club, but which is cheaper and (with Astute) dual use.
On the point around “value for money”, I think you will find that procuring three more identical Astutes, 100 Tomahawks and 100 warheads will be far cheaper than any of the other nuclear alternatives….
Your bang on the largest portion of the defence budget is spent on wages how the army is justifying keeping 100K soldier to maintain just 6K in afghan or indeed maintaining cold war level nuclear forces is beyond me especially when the other services and vital home land defence capabilities are being gutted to pay for it.
Nine thousand in Afghanistan, I think, not six thousand.
The Army’s 110,000 strong, all told. Take out all the soldiers under training and their instructors and you’re probably down to, what, 85,000 or so. And there’s a lot more who won’t be deployable, like the heavy metal regiments; we’ve no need for lots of Challenger 2s or assault bridge layers or AS 90s in Afghanistan, for example, so you can take them out of the picture as well. And there’ll be a lot of soldiers being things like pay clerks and so on who are necessary to the Army but wouldn’t be taken to Afghanistan.
Let’s take an estimate out of thin air for units “not needed in Afghan” and call that 15,000. So we’re down to 70,000.
Out of what’s left, you have to have 9,000 in Afghanistan at any one time. We operate roughly a one-in-four-or-five rotation – 16AA went out on Herrick 4 and Herrick 8 and are out there now on Herrick 13; 3 CDO went on Herrick 5 and Herrick 9 and are preparing to go on Herrick 14; the Gren Gds went on Herrick 6 and Herrick 11.
So for your 9,000 in Afghan, you have to have another 36,000 who’ve just got back or are training up to go again. That’s 45,000.
From what’s left you need to have a high-readiness battalion in case something else kicks off, and another one or two ready to take over from it, because you can’t stay at high readiness all the time; you’ll need to garrison Cyprus and the Falklands and Northern Ireland.
See how the maths works?
Note that the Americans have 1.5 million men under arms, and they were feeling the strain of sustaining a roughly proportionately similar-size deployment in Iraq and Afghan. This isn’t just the British army being inefficient; it’s the way armies work.
And the army doesn’t maintain cold war level nuclear forces. That would be the navy (paid for by a separate budget anyway).
If that party is not voted in, then the one that is knows it can reduce defence of the UK to Coast Guard and militia, and happily fund NGO’s and feed the worlds starving millions.
One point: this is a blog for people who want the defence of the UK to be taken seriously; not necessarily for people who want to spend more money on the armed forces. The two are not necessarily the same. It may well be the case that our nation’s defence is as well served by being liked as by being feared.
I can’t pretend to understand the in’s and out’s of much that has been commented on here but in simple terms we, the UK Gov’t that is, need to determine what are our intentions in the world. If we are to be a trading nation across the oceans and we have 500 merchant ships out there still I believe then the RN has its job to do as ambassador, protector sales generator for UK Ltd.
Foreign aid isn’t aid its business, we don’t give money away we spend it in places where we know we’ll get a return That’s why the coalition increased its budget when it came into power.
Europe has shown in the main to have little stomach in Afghanistan, the US may have to trun its gaze East and we may need our French alliance to allow us to protect ourselves in the future.
But we can speculate forever here with only 5 percent of the facts needed to hand.
I wouldn’t trust a politician one inch and just hope the military chiefs and civil servants have their voice heard and heeded. IMO Ian
Welcome to TD Ian
a.
Just to respond to your comment – my original assessment actual took account of the points you raise. I find it more useful to think in terms of military formations rather than numbers. So looking at the current forces, we have -
40 Batallions/Commandos of Infantry
10 Regiments of Armour
A current Afgan deployment is a reinforced Brigade of 5 Batallions of Infantry and 1 of Armour for a 6 month tour. By my calculations that would mean no Infantry Batallion would need to be deployed more than once every 4 years and no Armour more than once every 5 years (there is no reason, by the way, why an armoured regiment should re-role between Armoured Recon and MBT)
The point here is that the current tempo of Afghan ops simply can’t be used as a reason for maintaining the level of Infantry and especially Armour (or indeed Artillery). Logistics, Signals and Engineering are, of course, a different matter.
a said: “One point: this is a blog for people who want the defence of the UK to be taken seriously; not necessarily for people who want to spend more money on the armed forces. The two are not necessarily the same. It may well be the case that our nation’s defence is as well served by being liked as by being feared.”
You really do not have to make the point to me ! I have said many times in this forum that I would be happy for the funding to meet the rhetoric, whatever that level of funding is.
What I am not happy with is the “punching above our weight” BS, and a constant level of funding that does not meet either the published ‘strategies’ nor the political rhetoric. No grand strategy, but plenty of salami slicing gets us no where.
On the latter point, there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that increasing the aid budget will ‘buy’ us friends anywhere. I am of leftist leanings, and I have no problems with providing aid to foreign countries, however I think the current system by which that money is spent is so arcane, unmonitored and completely lacking transparency that it makes the MoD look positively efficient !
Add the two together and again the result simply does not meet the HMG rhetoric. I may be a very good thing to provide condoms to sub-saharan africa to prevent the spread of HIV and other diseases. However if HMG cannot afford to do that and simultaneously provide appropriate funds to the military to meet the published strategic requirements, and current operational requirements, then something has to fundamentally change, not just be constantly ‘fudged’. So for the sake of this example HMG would either have to stop providing the condoms or lets say, withdraw the long range airborne ASW capability in its entirety.
It is up to the reader to decide which of the above provides the best value for expenditure of tax payers money.
We don’t need to make people fear us, but making them like us does not necessarily make them useful allies either. As a nation we should be altruistic purely for altruisms sake, but only when we can afford it.
Mark ref: “indeed maintaining cold war level nuclear forces”
We haven’t had cold war nuclear forces since the late 1990′s. The 7 RAF Germany Squadrons have gone (3 Laarbruch/4 Bruggen)plus the UK back ups. The FAA had a nuclear strike capability with Sea Harrier and also helicopter NDB’s, all now gone. All thats left is Trident.
@ Nigel
I do know what you mean about Astute and special T-LAMs being cheaper. I have thought about that option too. Still think about it. And will go away from posting this think that our Nigel might be right.
But you are comparing an 81mm mortar with a 105mm light gun.
It is the range, the near hyper-sonic speeds the MIRVs arrive on target. It is about controlling the boats too; how will you communicate your intentions to your Astute out in the Pacific? The world is roughly 24k miles in diameter; 1500m mile range of TLAM in that context isn’t that great. The Astutes would have to sit in range of potential targets. Not picking on anybody in particular let say in 10 years time that will be China, Russia, and a possible Islamic state (with out getting to Tom Clancy!)
There is nothing logic about nuclear weapon systems….
a.
The figures you mention disclose a shockingly moribund admin system.
Eg payrole clerks, how many of those do you think tesco or john lewis have- a sight less than the army I suggest.
Why can’t tankers and bridges park the tanks – most of which are in reality quietly rusting any way, pick up guns and get trained as infantry a la USMC?
Why can’t reg working up or comming off line garrisson falkands or cyprus? why cant they be traning units
Think outside the box the private sector would
@Nigel – trouble is that Tomahawks just aren’t that scary to anyone with AEW and half-decent fighters or SAMs. Certainly not in the numbers that can be launched by the average submarine – OK, an Ohio SSGN is a bit different. So TLAM-N may be cheaper but it’s also not much of a deterrent. Which is kinda the point.
@x – think you’ll find the world is about 25k miles in circumference, not diameter!
It looks like the submarine world is head towards “fighter-bombers”, merging the role of SSN and SSBN as fleet numbers contract and SSN’s get bigger and quieter. You can view the Borei as a boomer-ified version of the Akula, although that was more through economic necessity than anything else. It seems the US are heading in that direction, and I’ve long thought that a stretched Astute with a few Trident tubes would be the sensible route for our MUFC.
Eg payroll clerks, how many of those do you think tesco or john lewis have- a sight less than the army I suggest.
I have no idea. Neither do you, I strongly suspect.
Why can’t tankers and bridges park the tanks – most of which are in reality quietly rusting any way, pick up guns and get trained as infantry a la USMC?
Because having a few tank units around is considered a good thing, and re-roling them all as infantry would essentially mean that, if we decide we need tanks again, we will have to build the regiments from scratch. Some of the tankers have been going out without their tanks anyway – 2 RTR in Mastiffs, for example.
Why can’t reg working up or comming off line garrison falkands or cyprus?
Because a) there are no or very few facilities in the Falklands, or Cyprus as far as I know, to train for the sort of duties troops do in Afghan. And
b) the troops in Cyprus and the Falklands actually have other things to do while they’re there. They’re not just sitting in the barracks all the time. (The Falklands is only one rifle company and some sappers, anyway.)
Nigel: A current Afghan deployment is a reinforced Brigade of 5 Battalions of Infantry and 1 of Armour for a 6 month tour. By my calculations that would mean no Infantry Batallion would need to be deployed more than once every 4 years
Good point. Though Herrick 13 actually has six battalions – Irish Gds, 2 SCOTS, 1 RIR, 2 PARA, 3 PARA and 5 SCOTS – so did Herrick 12, and Herrick 14 will have six as well. That brings the rotation period down to 40/6 = one every six and a bit tours, if the entire army does nothing else other than Herrick, and if the army decides to have no capacity to reinforce Herrick in a crisis, or to intervene anywhere else which obviously is not the case. Once you allow for a bit of safety margin, plus other deployments, you’re down to a one in five rotation, which is what’s actually happening.
a@ 10.51
Im sorry but your wrong at the last check there is roughly 6000 reg members of the army in afghan about 600 from the TA, 1300 from the RN and around 1500 from the RAF. Just because the media dont recognise the difference doesn’t mean there isnt one.
The army number goes down significantly for 6 months out of every 24 when the RM deploy to afghan. So yes the the army ability to deploy is not up to it. Yes too many in certain areas in the army/rn/raf are being asked to go to afghan far too many times. But at the end of day thats because the army top brass has not reformed the service after the cold war.
To put it in context if you take the the 5:1 deployment ratio the army use we end up at about 36000 people. Whats left over about 65000 people is now around the same size as the entire RAF and RN combined. Yes there is a 2 battalion garrison in Cyprus, 1 battalion in Brunei and a single army company in the Falklands but hardly justification for maintaining current numbers. The troops now in NI deploy to Afghan and no longer support the police in NI other than ATO support ect.
AS for the US army there is about 550K people in there regulars and theyve maintained about 100K regulars between Iraq,Afghan since 2003 along with significant garrisons in Korea and Japan and else were in the mid east.
As I posted on TD before if the RN used the same deployment ratio used by the army then with the current numbers they supply to afghan theatre they would be capable of deploying just 2 Frigates. I could see the headlines now “Navy with 100 ships can only deploy 2″ ect.
The other services have been stripped of everything except that which is relevant to afghan no matter how important it is to UK national defence so why the special case for the army?
@ El Sid
Whoops! I forgot I am not at home……….
I do fear that the UK nuclear deterrent may be cut so small that it no longer deters, but leaves us a legitimate nuclear target.
Who would have dared had a go when we had 300-600 warheads, many one megaton.
If we cut to only 120 x 100kt does this deter?
Spread over 4 boats, means only a quarter launched. A country the size of China could absorb 30 X 100 kt explosions & carry on.
@ John H
You may have a point. There is some difference between a 100kt device and 1megaton device. Don’t forget that in “real terms” there is little difference in damage between 1megaton and say 3 megaton. You have to remember that China isn’t as unified as it seems. If you could decapitate the state it could well fall apart. Of course we wouldn’t be there to see that happen.
@ All
I wish I could find those figures that somebody here posted that showed it was cheaper to deploy a marine than a TA soldier.
The figures were complete and utter bollox though x, sorry mate, it failed to take into account a whole host of factors
No worries. I haven’t been mentioning it in real life.
a
Eg payroll clerks, how many of those do you think tesco or john lewis have- a sight less than the army I suggest.
I have no idea. Neither do you, I strongly suspect.
No I don’t, but you started the ‘just say’ guestimating figures. But after 20 years in the private sector, I can say it does not generally carry passangers.
Why can’t tankers and bridges park the tanks – most of which are in reality quietly rusting any way, pick up guns and get trained as infantry a la USMC?
Because having a few tank units around is considered a good thing, and re-roling them all as infantry would essentially mean that, if we decide we need tanks again, we will have to build the regiments from scratch. Some of the tankers have been going out without their tanks anyway – 2 RTR in Mastiffs, for example.
That is exactly the point. What good is ‘a few tanks units’ anyone with a real tank army would chew them up, that is anyone we are likely to want to deploy them against. Yet another ‘capability’ we keep up by having a peenny packet complete with a ‘corps’ to its name. With all of it logistical trail.
Still probably looks good on the recruiting posters I suppose usefull for that. If some of them ar ebeing reroled to support infantry, then they should not be in the debit column against those not available to go.
Why can’t reg working up or comming off line garrison falkands or cyprus?
Because a) there are no or very few facilities in the Falklands, or Cyprus as far as I know, to train for the sort of duties troops do in Afghan. And
b) the troops in Cyprus and the Falklands actually have other things to do while they’re there. They’re not just sitting in the barracks all the time. (The Falklands is only one rifle company and some sappers, anyway.)
Ok Not all the troops would have to be training troops but training could certainly be done at both venues to help shave costs. The only difference i can see between Brecon Beacons and Warcop etc and west falkland is that there is more likelyhood of a live fire excercise in west falkland. Besides which it was you who sited Falkand as a drain on manpower either it is or it isnt.
Just saying that of course armed forces are ‘different’, but really some of the ‘units’ and ‘commands’ we have ‘on strength’ are little more than paper units which still manage to tie up support manpower etc. All suggestions for change run into NIH and lots of argument why we cant not have tanks if we want to remain a first rank per etc etc etc.
We can just carry on like we are, but in the next decade the army will become full of brave dedicated but ultimatly useless soldiers.