You would have had to be as reclusive as Gadaffi this week not to have noticed the Army making its play for future budgets.
Widely predicted to be being lined up for a serious cut post Afghanistan, maybe even further than FF20, it is, as they say, getting its digs in early.
Various articles in the mainstream media, a couple of provacative statements about lazy thinking and a push to get back to combined arms manouver force structure once we have gotten the f**k out of dodge (maybe sooner than the 2015 everyone thinks) have all been combined in a beutifully orchestrated media blitz to remind everyone of the need for lots more cash in the future.
These articles and speeches have culminated today with the release of the video below from the Army.
We all enjoy a spot of bullshit bingo, see if you can spot.
- Bang for the buck
- Synergistic
- Toolbox
- Cold War Relics
- Warfighting
The underlying message is that Afghanistan has changed the Army too much and we need to get back into the business of being a full spectrum force again becaause you never know, strategic shock etc etc.
Oh, and by the way, we needs lots of cash.
It also makes a great play about being chums with America and how they might not like us very much if we aren’t fully capable so you know, we need lots of cash.
We have to stop this desperate sucking up to the USA and realise that pleasing the USA by being the military 51st state does not necessarily serve our needs.
The Future of the British Army Series…
The Future of the British Army 01 – Scene Setting
The Future of the British Army 02 – Tasks and Capabilities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Force
‘We have to stop this desperate sucking up to the USA’
Fat chance TD, did you not see Obamas visit to do a speech in Westminster Hall? It was like a bunch of fanboys attending a movie release hoping to get an autograph!
I see the army have already started the
“We will have to have more money, therefore we will have more money in 2015″
Campaign: – http://t.co/ZpOiTSr
(sorry can’t seem to past active link).
If we don’t suck up to the US who do we such up too?
Or are we advocating armed neutrality?
x,
Wrt your first comment, it would be an interesting way to revive the old Volunteers as something distinct from the TA, and perhaps a bit like the “police/infrastructure” Home Guard in Denmark. Long as you have a good selection process to weed out mall-cop Moseleys, that seems not a bad suggestion. (But yes, I also get the joke about where the Army of Parliament is headed. And have I mentioned the gravatar seems to capture something subtle about your essence ?
On the second point it’s a little like the line in 1984 (without all the meaning the novel puts in) about always having been at war with Oceania. Sucking up to the US is “how it’s always been” and any change of that magnitude, in any political system, makes its elite stakeholders widdle their schoolboy pants. When you have to adjust to entirely new circumstances there’s the chance you yourself might, y’know, lose to someone/thing that’s leaner/harder/smarter/in the right place. And that’s just not on, old boy. Actually what I’d advocate is a different “five powers” arrangement for the north Atlantic (UK, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and the Flemish can sit in as observers whatever happens to Belgium), a wary working relationship with France, and a determination to keep an edge on the decaying Russians/rising Brazilians as the most prominent naval force in the Atlantic that doesn’t have “U.S. Navy” painted on the side (actually they will disappear from the Atlantic in the next twenty years, above surface anyway, except for emergencies.) But that’s for another thread.
Boss,
Of course they’re making a resource play. And in the end that will, pace IXION, have to change. Even the Spanish have been getting back on their power-projection feet in the last decade or so, and they ate two hundred years of kack from Trafalgar to Juan Carlos. Things cycle. Question is whether you can put in the wit and the sweat equity to make them cycle to advantage, or break out the plate and cutlery.
As it’s Friday, can we have rules for a money-and-kit-grab press briefing drinking game please?
(NB: You mentioned “barman third” in one of the Future-of-Army threads under skill sets. Third? Third?!? The unofficial history of the Royal Tapster’s Corps has battle honours going back to Alfred the sodding Great ….)
The “have to change” part being actually putting *in* resources for defence (and recapitalising a number of other things from railroad points and power grids to schools and mobile CT scanners, etc.) rather than using a financial bubble to grotesquely bribe the country into debt on behalf of bubble-makers on one hand and the newly (or permanently) unemployed on the other (Brown-style) or rescue the credit rating of your school chums who burned their fingers and a trillion pound notes at the betting tables on the other (Cameron/Osborne-style).
The problem for me is that the only way that the services can argue for more resources is through their respective branches. It’s hardly surprising that a general argues for more money for the army, an admiral for the navy and so on…
I really want to see the creation of a home/costal command and a expeditionary command. Keep the 3 services as separate entities but tie them more closely together and hopefully you will get joined up thinking. You may even get an army commander arguing for more amphibious capability or air cover from a CVF…
Since British defence policy over the last 20+ years has been “we can lose capability x/y/z because in practice the Yanks will always be there”, how can we not suck up to them, exactly?
Personally, I’ve found it rather pathetic to see commentators simultaneously playing the anti-American card as well as grandly declaring we don’t need a “full spectrum” force full of “cold war relics”.
If you really want us not to be the “51st state” then we need to have more of a full spectrum force, not less. If you want us to be respected as an ally, then we have to demonstrate the same fortitude as the US did during the Iraqi surge, not the pathetic run for the exits while whining crap excuses, pace Basra.
TD,
Your implied view that the Generals should not be asking for more cash is surprising to say the least, especially as you usually talk such unremitting good sense. I am probably wrong but I sense a slight change of tack in your thinking over more recent times. You appear to be taking the view that, as cuts are inevitable, we should be racking our brains to think of the most ingenious ways of dealing with the inevitable reduction in defence expenditure.
Well, of course cuts are inevitable. The present economic crisis was caused by a combination of short-term thinking by the European politicians who over-borrowed to buy electoral popularity and the central bankers who turned a blind eye to the escalation in sovereign debt (I actually suspect the former rather than the latter as being mainly responsible, as it is governments which allow credit). Many of us could see the present crisis looming six or seven years ago, with government overspending, etc. So of course draconian cuts are necessary and defence must take its share, although not as much as it has done.
However, (and it is a very big “however”) after four years of the necessary corrective medicine, the economy should be in better shape. I fail to see why arguments should not be put forward for increased spending on the Army post-2015. Everyone else does it. Trade Unions and professional association argue for increased spending in areas such as education, health, transport, etc. Why should the military be any exception?
In my humble opinion, we have had too much of the “We must cut our garment according to our cloth, pull in our horns, etc.” type of argument. The Army, at present fully manned at 102,000, is still “running hot” dealing with one medium-sized campaign in Afghanistan. It needs more resources, not fewer.
So we should all be writing to our M.P.s, the MOD, the Press, etc. etc., lobbying for increased expenditure on defence, not less, post-2015. Rant over!
Mike W……
Well said Sir. Could not agree more.
Mike, it raised a small smile this week; the multimedia, multi channel, pincer movement on the minds of opinion formers, good timing as well.
A well planned psyops assault on the Treasury, Jed, have been moonlighting
On a more serious note, this economic corrective measures you talk of seems to be having the effect of actually increasing public sector borrowing but that’s another story.
I sometimes think it would be more fun to run the sort of blog that says defence spending should be at 3% or 4% of GDP but if you look at my posts on strategy you will see that I am of the opinion that there are things that we should be doing as a nation that contribute to real world security other than the military.
What depresses me about this video more than anything though is the lack of any original thinking, the depressing use of nonsensical jargon like toolbox and bang for the buck, its gets on my nerves.
Once we have got past this the main reason they seem to have for more spending is so the USA will like us, seriously
Gen Carter: Ah well I’ll grant you Apache is somewhat good and all that, but what it doesn’t give you is:
“precision fires in all weathers…sense of heavy weight capability…acts in coercive terms on the mind of your opponent” Bah humbug bloody AAC
Blimey! If we can’t get even that capability out of Apache maybe we should have just gone with GEC’s cheap-n-cheerful Cobra Venom bid back in the early 90′s
@ Jackstaff
It was more a comment on our and our military’s relationship to the US and her military………
Though saying that I concur with somebody else’s learned comment that the TA needs to be put on a more “formal” footing.
@ All
It doesn’t matter what the army does to persuade the politicians, unless something serious happens defence will always be an easy target for cuts. The body politic feels safe, has other concerns, and has no real understanding of the military. So the politicians who represent them will reflect this. Even though it should be argued that the polictians are also put in place to see the bigger over arching picture in terms of security.
Forget ‘full spectrum’; it just means ending up not being able to do anything to any worthwhile standard.
Pick capabilities to specialize in, which can make up a significant and useful part of a multi-national force, and which match our priority threats – then build up that capability while brutaly and ruthlessly hacking away at everything else.
Unbalanced as a solo operator, but retaining strategic clout in our priority area.
@Brian Black
“Forget ‘full spectrum’; it just means ending up not being able to do anything to any worthwhile standard”
Or, everyone could develop their own full or near full spectrum capabilities, so that when the group comes together for an alliance we all can brings similar pieces to the table and build a force.
So tanks and mechanised infantry from Britain, France and other partners could potentially form an armoured division, while combining their light infantry into a light division etc.
Specialisation could end in disaster, when you decide as a European whole that so and so country is going to provide the bulk of future ISTAR needs and then decides all of a sudden that it doesn’t want to play in the next war.
Now you have no ISTAR.
Look at Libya now. What if Europes military was built on the notion that we would all work together in one big happy family? Right now we’d be missing whatever assets it was that Germany, Italy and Spain were supposed to be bringing to the table.
Britain can afford an independent, decent sized military. But a few things need to be sorted.
- Defence, as a percentage of GDP, should really rise to meet the governments ambitions for our place in the world. If not, then frankly I see it as the duty of the senior staffs to stand up to the government of the day and simply refuse to send men into an action that they know will over stretch resources.
- You have to be clever with your budgets. Capping pay at the higher levels, raising it at the lower levels to increase retention of skilled staff, and not wasting money. Become a little more efficient as an organisation.
- As TD has preached all this time, look for ruthless commonality savings to be had.
- Get the government to understand that defense has its own economic value, in terms of trade purchased through influence, prestige and the promise of security and assistance.
Hi BB,
Well said “Pick capabilities to specialize in, which can make up a significant and useful part of a multi-national force, and which match our priority threats – then build up that capability while brutaly and ruthlessly hacking away at everything else.”
- in line with TD’s message, but much more consicely put
RE ” Right now we’d be missing whatever assets it was that Germany, Italy and Spain were supposed to be bringing to the table.”
- there might be more than meets the eye (of the domestic politics)
- wasn’t it that Germany back-filled for AWACS crews for A-stan, so there were enough (of others) to go for the Libya operation
- Italy provides the bases; I am surprised of the low profile Spain has taken… Using African-continent language (from the past), they are a front-line nation (if it all crashes down on the southern shores)
Perhaps TD should enlighten us as to what the UK should specialise in?
@Brian Black,
All very fine in theory until, as Chris.B. so astutely says, the others nations don’t want to play. Hasn’t the cry been again and again and again and again and again during recent conflicts: “Why can’t other NATO (or European or Western) nations do something? Why is it always the UK or the USA or Canada that puts the boots on the ground?”
Oh, it’s fine to do background, behind the conflict zone stuff (AWACS, for instance, as ArmChair Civvy suggests) but do we really want to enter a series of pacts where, as now, just a few nations do the hard fighting and the reluctant or disinclined sit on the sidelines? It is, after all,only recently that France appears to have stepped up to the mark.
The point is ACC, we have the tools to cover for a lack of involvement by our european “friends”. If however, Germany had a monopoly on say European fighter aircraft, or they were the ones who were supposed to provide all the air-to-air refuelling then we’d be up a certain creek without a paddle.
The guys over at Stratfor hit this one on the head with a post about Israel; anytime you’re plan of defence is highly reliant on someone else, you’re in serious trouble.
In a more appreciable way of making resources play, the Apaches have landed the first blows on Libya last night. http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2011/06/delivering-air-power-from-sea-well.html
Good job done, too.
But i truly can’t avoid observing that this is Air Power delivered from the sea… wasn’t it supposed to be “not needed” for ten years?
It didn’t even last 10 months.
Chris.B. You took the words out of my mouth. This argument about each country providing a niche capability, falls flat on its face when (is often the case with our European..what shall I call them? Cousins will do). They fail to turn up for the match.
We need a full capability INDEPENDENT capability or we retire from the International stage and suffer the consequences (and they are not trvial).
The power that be need to wake-up PDQ and realise the true VALUE of the armed forces. They are a NET asset ASSET NOT a fcuking liability, as they seem to be viewed by those in the treasury.
Just, to get back to Libya, if this does not reinforce the need for a massive uplift in Defence spending then we are doomed…
If Ark Royal and its Harriers had not been scrapped, it could have provided very useful CAS.
Ocean (and I guess Lusty) are the only ships capable of operating the Apache at sea and there are currently no plans for their replacement. Don’t anyone dare say that’s what CVF will be!!!
I have fingers in my ears and whistling very loudly!!!
X, I think the UK already does specialise, a combination of airpower and ‘boots on the ground’.
The idea of specialisation is not new – during the Cold-War we had “Natoisation”, which made sort of strategic sense, except when it came to the Islands which shall not be named. A couple of months later and the RN would have been specialised in to an North Sea ASW force. I don’t want to sound too much like a typical liberal but the answer is to get the balance right – specialise in certain key areas and perhaps retain full spectrum capability in reserve forces?
Gab, not really, it was fast air from the sea for the next 10 years, a faintly ridiculous notion I agree but nevertheless, it was made on the basis of being able to defend a naval task group with a combination of T45 and land based fighters whilst being able to conduct land attack with TLAM and AH depending on circumstances.
Libya hasn’t changed that one little bit, in fact, it weakens the case for maritime fast air if anything
Its all about the scale of your independant force isn’t it and remember the word DEFENCE
I have no problem whatsoever in maintaining a full spectrum balanced force for the defence of the UK and overseas territories but if we look at what that actually needs its very different from what we have now. Is Libya really about defence, has Iceland or Germany or Turkey weighed in, no, we are engaged in Libya because we chose to do so, nothing WHATSOEVER to do with defence
So yes, lets have a full spectrum defence capability to actually defend us and guard against strategic shock but then anything above that is open for debate
That might mean specialising in key areas or spreading ourselves wider with a greater set of capabilities, each is valid and worthy of debate
AHs & TLAMs from the sea… we can take a count under each
… so Libya is at the max, and had the US not been so inclined, it would have been a “no go”?
So, can do S Leone; no can do Libya, should we deem it important for our, and our interests, alone? The so called Sovereign capability…
ACC, I include maritime fast air as one of those core capabilities we should have but it might be tied into a sensible look at what exactly we are likely to be doing on our own i.e. small/medium scale
Therefore this does not mean 2 CVF it means a pair of Invincible replacements, perhaps something like the Juan Carlos or USS America class.
Modest, achievable economically and within the realms of sensible, unlike CVF, which was and is a vanity project that unforunately is going to cost a huge amount of cash and deliver very little once again, all fur coat and no knickers
In your world TD, perhaps Libya weakens the need for air power at sea, in mine it does the exact opposite.
Army chiefs, RAF chiefs, Navy chiefs, RUSI experts, US Army officers and French officers too are of my very same opinion. Actually, i believe the only one who dared speaking (mildly) against aircraft carriers was Dannatt.
“this does not mean 2 CVF it means a pair of Invincible replacements”
Is it a “we should have ordered smaller ships” or is an indefensible “scrap CVF, build two America” suggestion?
Both are not relevant as they are equally impossible at this stage, but the second option in particular is pure folly.
“[CVF] cost a huge amount of cash and deliver very little once again”
There’s a very simple solution to this, and is giving all of the F35C a clear “naval first” role, no compromise.
Then you have delivered plenty.
Of course, if you buy aircraft carriers and then use the carrier planes on land, it does not work, but that is most evidently not a ship problem.
Anyway, i think it is worth sharing the latest french declarations are very interesting about the old “carrier sharing” matter, as they are very interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8556054/We-should-share-aircraft-carrier-say-French.html
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/interview-french-navy-boss-sees-libyan-military-humanitarian-aid
(Two sources so we can avoid the moaning about the first article being Telegraph and all that nonsense)
I like the idea immensely. Each nation keeps an operational frontline carrier to do stuff with, and the second CVF is used, with bi-national crew, for training and other activities, while being available in emergency to the RN as it stays british flagged.
The french double the availability of their own carrier air without having to fund PA2.
I know many will be horrified by the idea of sharing with the french, but since i’m far more horrified by the implications of wasting a CVF (and biting in the value of the one that remains too, as consequence) i’m a total supporter of an approach of this kind.
The idea is that France pays for getting hands on a CVF by funding the fitting of cats and wires to it, helping the UK footing the bill.
Everyone wins, in this scenario. And it also recognizes that you can’t share a carrier in war, if not in very special circumstances.
If not for the political implications, then for the logistical ones.
As the Sea Lord and RAF Chief made clear to the Parliamentary Defence Committee, there is no “sharing” a carrier in war.
French has Rafales, Britan the F35C. Unless this changes (highly unlikely), there’s nearly nothing in common between the two planes, and there’s no way you can go to war loading a carrier with two different packages of spares, engines and weaponry.
In war, you go with YOUR OWN carrier. In peacetime, you share training costs on a carrier used by both.
It does make sense.
As somebody here is fond of saying personnel costs are a major consideration so I am hoping that CVF will a slightly smaller than the Invincibles (and a more efficient plant) should be quite economical.
Perhaps where the CVF project entered difficult waters was because the government sought commonality between maritime and land-based land. Perhaps if the RN had been allowed to go its own way things would have been different? Going with F18 or Rafale by adopting that other tactic propounded here that of working with and sharing capabilities with (close) allies. Though I wouldn’t want to advocate sucking up to the Americans…….
@x
Had we built CVA-01 back in 1966, I guess we would have been Hornet-operators since the late 1980ies.
We would have been ruthless commonal with Canada, Australia, the US and Spain, and ultimately the RN with the RAF. Tornado F.3 would have never happened, Tornado GR would have been phased out in the 90ies.
BAE would have been busy in the Hornet-equipment-market, ultimately swallowing McDonnell-Douglas instead of United Defense.
Not too bad a picture.
So, CVF is a chance to not repeat historic mistakes. Never exchange short-time savings for long-term folly.
That’s a lot of assumptions there McZ. For example why wouldn’t we have the F3 if the navy had F/A 18s?
TD
I think thats somewhat of sweeping statement
“Libya hasn’t changed that one little bit, in fact, it weakens the case for maritime fast air if anything”
I think its done nothing of the sort it keep its exactly were its always been an incredible useful option. We in europe do not have sufficient AAR a/c and the US cannot provide a vast increase on that because most of there tankers use a different method (i do wonder if this is the real reason why addition european fighter a/c have not been added). Also with continued strain on said tanker fleet supporting afghan the option having a carrier with capable a/c would have been a huge bonus. Apaches could have operated from it also allowing for more joined up air operations.
Take USS America it got a standard crew complement larger than CVF which has a crew complement similar to invincible and similar running costs to invincible. Its actual size is irrelevant indeed it allows more module construction and indeed easier upgrades in the future the very things you argue for in the surface combatants. Had the government ministers not delayed the contracts they would have cost similar to USS america. I get the sense your objections to CVF are getting more polarised in an attempt to stick it to PTT and Sharkys world than the utility they will provide to UK.
Indeed with the US navy now considering F35C to replace all versions of hornet from 2025 we could see more commonality not less indeed from 2030 the UK typhoon replacement will most likely be more F35s and ucavs so the air group will be sufficient over the longer term.
McZ
As Topman suggests the rational for F3 was a long range missile launch platform. Something Fa18 is not all versions have suffered in the range stakes. If you had wanted to replace F3 then the F14 tomcat would have been the choice. FA18 may have replaced harrier and jaguar much quicker but I think I would have just gone for the same harrier as the US marines.
@Topman & Mark
Don’t take that too seriously.
But I’m pretty sure the late Thatcher- or early Major-treasury would have considered the F.3 – which had no more Skyflashs than the F-18 had Sparrows – an luxury item after the collapse of the Warsaw pact.
re defence as a proportion of gdp -
we already have a lower limit as confirmed by the sdar negotiations with the US – the 2.0 percent NATO stipulation.
ir we go below that limit then expect US involvement with NATO to plummet. if not even the UK is willing gto meet that commitment then it is valueless, and that is recognised by both london and washington!
In the case of CVF, perhaps smaller carriers would have been better. While containing less fighters on a single carriers, it would be cheaper as well as the fact we could make more than just two carriers, perhaps 4, for the same price as the CVF. This would’ve allowed us to spread out our forces even more. As seen in Libya, the rest of NATO is struggling to cope with tasks. Co-operation with the US, should not be a requirement. We should be able to work on our own, in libya, the rest of NATO, has not been devoting lots of aircraft. In terms of combat aircraft, the French and us have provided most of them, as well as most of the strikes. The US did in the early parts, which was helpful. This is a need, for us to be able to mount our own operations with our own assets. I believe we should focus on maritime naval air power. I think there should be a review on what threats may be coming in the next 50 years or so. It should really be done, by those which are not part of any government body. We are not the US, we lack the huge amount of money, the US gets. We cannot create an effective full spectrum force, with the budget we have. I also believe we should just keep the other CVF. The french can go and develop their own. We paid for the development and design, so why should it go to the french. Its like saying a big screw you to the taxpayers, who have paid for it.
@ McZ
Yes!!! I hear you on that.
Specialization and consolidation of our forces around key capabilities opens up the criticism that our forces would be up the creak without assistance from allies. But trying to create a hi-spec full spectrum force on such a tight budget creates the problem of having a wide range of capabilities at such a low scale as to be unable to operate independantly anyway.
Concentrating effort in key areas does mean that your force will not be able to operate independently in every situation; but also means that when the right situation arises, you have something worthwhile to bring to the table.
It is also financially more efficient to to reduce the number of capabilities we have, as there are often minimum costs associated with introducing equipment and training regardless of the scale of those capabilities. So more money for everything else.