IXION’s continuing quest for realism.
These posts were started by yours truly thinking about in particular the RN and the numbers game.
One thing led to another and started me thinking about the other forces and defence in general.
I really don’t mind if people disagreed with anything I wrote free country and all that.
I would like to make it clear there is no agenda here to ’cut as such’. Insofar as there are cuts, it is to live within the actual budget. Not some, ’UOR credit card funded’, or fantasy ’If we hang on long enough there will be more money’, budget. I mean the actual Budget.
Within that budget, the idea was that we would have enough money to properly train troops to use the equipment we have, and fund enough real world logistical support for their proper use; and above all else to actually defend this country, from most likely threats.
I notice that such critics as there are of my proposals, some of whom airily assert that you cannot pick your enemies and where and when and how you fight, and the future is uncertain: Do not by and large then put up any likely threats other than the ones I mentioned which require armoured divisions. Although I make it clear that I am not omniscient and am quite happy to be told there are others.
I could not agree about the uncertainty of the future more!
But we cannot have enough men or equipment to be ready to fight any conceivable threat; like I said the Martians could land in the car park tomorrow, anyone suggesting a space lazar program?
As for the SDR style reassessment of the UK’s foreign commitments I make no apologies:-
- Just because we do business somewhere.
- Just because we are in NATO
- Just because we are 2nd best mates with the USA.
- Just because wherever was once pink on a map.
- Just because there is trouble in some third world toilet
- Just because the umpteenth round of massacre and counter massacre kicks off, in some ethnic / religious war that has been going on for centuries; and will be going on long after our great grandchildren are dead .
- Just because the USA wants to go and kill someone.
- Just because we are ‘globally engaged‘. (Whatever that means).
- Just because WASAWPYK. (We Are Still A World Power You Know).
Trying run some sort of barging basement superpower capability is just dumb. Really
dumb.
We are ‘Bloody Belgium’. We could also be Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Brazil etc etc etc.
Specific posts
I think it’s fair to say that the Army and the Air force posts were not that controversial.
The navy, OMG the navy, always on this site it is the navy where the wars start!
To those who were of the opinion that we do not need a coastguard style force, that’s OK by me, that’s a reasoned debate etc.
However as predicted there were those who seemingly denied not only that the RN should do it, but that anyone should do it because that would attack the RN’s Budget. The ‘we’re not floating rozers’ crowd were out in force.
That is less understandable. Keeping a pristine RN by leaving gaps in our security is bizarre.
Ok, I accept the scrap the ‘fast pointy Ships’ was an extreme proposition. That part of my post approached (but did not quite reach) trolling. I am not that sure I would go that far myself. But but but….
We cannot go on as we are. The numbers game is catching us up, and we will eventually get caught out.
The CVF and all it’s works will reduce the surface RN to a single bargain basement, one trick pony. ‘Easy Carrier Battle Group’ or perhaps ‘Ryan naval airpower’ IF we can make it all work.
Airy assertions that ‘something else will have to be cut, and the money found’ are just plain pipe dreams. We are not going to have 12 destroyers or 24 frigates or any other increase in numbers that will make a real capability shift.
I would reiterate I if we were going to play world power we should do it properly, I dream of 3 nuclear CBG and a couple of division sized amphibious forces, but it ain’t gonna to happen.
TD mentioned he thought I was ‘isolationist’ I’m not I’m a realist.
Ixion
I dont claim a micro army / massive fleet is likely.
But for the uk it is was and always will be the best option.
I dont argue for three nuclear super carriers like nimitz (my suggestion of an 800 metre long ship allowing for unassisted take off / landing was purely accademic).
The MoD publishes accounts, they arent massivly detailed, except for the navy, the raf publishes fairly detailed ones, and the army almost nothing.
But, even if, cutting the army in half only saves 1/3 of its budget, thats more than enough to pay for three times the amphib fleet we have *and* more escorts.
If we play 3% fantasy, well, thats nearly a full 1% increase, which could more than double the current fleet.
Radical, but affordable.
sorry to disagree buddy but your realism leads to isolationism. i’m an American and i actually believe that if the UK steps back from the world stage then not only will the UK become irrelevant but so will Europe.
i won’t like it, i don’t think its good for the world but i can live with it. but i don’t think that Europe can. whether you like it or not you’re facing a resurgent Russia that is growling at smaller democracies. whether you like it or not you have a China that has all of the nations of the Pacific Rim nervous as hell. want to talk about unrestrained immigration? let one of those toilets erupt in northern africa and see what ends up on your doorsteps.
i hear Europeans pay the equivalent of 10 dollars a gallon for gas (my estimate might be high but you get the point)…imagine what will happen when Iran goes crazy and lobs a couple of ballistic missiles at Israel and the entire region erupts.
yep. talking about cutting back on defense spending is fashionable but the end results are always messy.
oh and if your forces are anything like ours (and they are except your benefits for your servicemembers are even more extravagent than our own) then you’ll realize that the true cost driven isn’t the carrier, tank, armored vehicle or rifle…its the people.
but if you suddenly pink slip 16500 people you’re going to spike your unemployment rate.
what is the percentage of your budget dedicated to defense? i bet its small and the real culprit is one that you and others don’t want to look at…its your welfare state. but don’t feel bad. we have the same problem.
I disagree.
As a maritime nation, it is essential that we have an effective navy. And that means being able in a time of war to ensure that our sea lanes are clear of enemy combatants. Whilst some might doubt the wisdom of carrier power, time and time again it has been proven to be essential.
Where we have fallen down is the fact we’ve not been able to keep up with the likes of MEKO and Navantia, in building vessels which are also exportable, which in itself may reduce the costs of building the vessels for the RNs own usage.
The UK has always had a comparatively small army compared to the size of its naval fleet. And it is easier to train and hand a volunteer a rifle in time of crisis than it is to quickly build a new vessel for them to crew. As 95% of our borders are maritime and the only land border is with another maritime nation, I’ve always thought there should be a 50/25/25 balance between Army (including Marines), Air Force and Navy. So if the Army of tomorrow is going to be 80,000 (+40,000 Territorials) we should have a Navy of 40,000 and the number of vessels necessary for this size of personnel to crew.
IXION, I’ll restrict myself to this: no surface combatant or support vessel can survive without air defence. SAM’s can cover to the horizon only, hence some form of airborne air defence is required. Carrier air is the cheapest way of providing that air defence, when you take into account all the transit time, difficulties in sourcing suitable airfields, air refuelling etc. Seven billion for 50 year assets is cheap (we will buy the aircraft anyway), and it’s not as if the RAF doesn’t have to staff and defend airfields either when we talk about OPEX. So what’s the problem?
Solomon, I don’t agree with Ixions world view or what the UK’s place should be in it.
We spend 2.2% of GDP which gives us the 4th highest defence budget in the world. We spend plenty on defence, we just spend it poorly.
However, British people WANT a welfare state and have done since ww2. Ixion is a managed decline isolationist self flagelating type who would have been in his element in the 1970′s… whereas you are a bit of a drama queen and sensationalist.
We last had a bit of empire over 50 years ago, the UK must live in 2011. I actually think our planning for 2020 is excellent and realistic and gives us the capability to whack anyone who threatens us (bar China, who we wouldn’t fight alone anyway)
You say ‘imagine what will happen when Iran goes crazy and lobs a couple of ballistic missiles at Israel and the entire region erupts.’
Why would that be Britains problem alone anyway? We are not the worlds policeman, you are.
I’ll limit myself to the following comments:
* when there are no direct threats to our nations security, the world is much more interdependent tmand unpredictable than we all can imagine. Therefore, we need to think long and hard about what capabilities we destroy incase we need them later.
* let’s not forget that the UK’s boarders are not just in Europe (or the South Atlantic)
* let’s not kid ourselves that not having things (year such as carriers) does not make things impossible, but if you want to do it will probably cost more lives.
* it’s easy to talk ourselves down (it’s a national trait) but we can be much more if we believe it (and spend our money more wisely). Having said that we are not the USA or China, but we can be top tier in some areas that are important to us.
The UK was always a maritime nation before WW2 and the cold war and there were hordes at our gates; it’s time that the UK focused back on it’s navy as it’s top tier area of defence. 12 properly equiped T45s, 2 CVFs and as many Astutes as we can afford would make us 2nd only to the US in the naval sphere…
andy
do they?
When was the last time we had a sensible discussion on the matter?
Bupa costs 350 per year.
Nhs cover costs 2000
it started at 350 (equivilant) and just kept growing
‘welfarism’ is closer to a state religion than a public service.
But anyway, if we put my navy centric raider force against the still undefined alternative thats not yet been defined, i think i’d win the public vote.
‘andy
do they?’
Absolutely. Just like defence we want to see it better spent but i’d say 90%+ of British people believe in the NHS and looking after our society in general. That doesn’t mean not tightening up on benefits, but yes i’d say the vast majority of British people are for the welfare state.
Ixion – I will agree with one thing he said. We have to be more prudent and pick and choose our interventions rather than hopping onto every little world flare up. And as much as I derided you earlier, I am a semi-isolationist but I am one who wants strong armed forces too. Isolationism without a big stick, is faux isolationism.
IXION, you’re anything but a realist.
A realist would see that we are in the same quandry that we have been in since the 1500s – worldwide (or European wide in them days) interests without the necessary muscle to defend them against all foes without the help of a coalition or alliance. Our strategic dilemma’s are ones that Henry VIII would recognise with a wry smile.
A realist cannot think it proper to simply throw in the towel and expect everything to just be okay if we don’t touch or do anything.
Dom the country does indeed want a welfare system. And it needs a welfare system.
@ Solomon, nice to see some comments on here from our cousins across the Atlantic. I agree with your sentiment. The UK cutting back means that Europe becomes irrelevant at a time when the geo political situation is being turned on its head. The USA spends 4.5% of its GDP on defence which is probably unaffordable for peace time. The UK spends half that per head. A little increase in the budget back to 2.5% is affordable and sensible. We can easily afford this. Yes times are tough and the government needs to cut back, but our budget deficit (unlike France the number 3 spender) will be gone by 2015. We need to spend our money on the areas where we have the most need and can add the greatest strategic effect. Today that’s Afghanistan and the Army but tomorrow that really should be the navy and a maritime doctrine. We don’t have to choose between the Armed forces and benefits or the NHS. We could simply cut the foreign aid budget and spend the money at home making thousands of British high tech jobs whilst only denting the outlook for Mercedes dealership’s in Africa.
“But we cannot have enough men or equipment to be ready to fight any conceivable threat; like I said the Martians could land in the car park tomorrow, anyone suggesting a space lazar program?” – Yes. Yes I am.
In fact, lets scrap the CVF’S and build ourselves a Battlestar! of course funding the the Vipers might be tricky….
The US Navy is already building its Zumwalt class battlestar/death star maybe we should have one.
@ Dominic J – RE: “my suggestion of an 800 metre long ship allowing for unassisted take off / landing was purely accademic.” DK Brown had a strange suggestion in Future British Surface fleet for a aircraft landing platform – essentially an oil tanker with a flat top. Idea was to have a refueling platform for RAF CAP’s over the North Sea during the Cold-war.
GJ,
How strange; the Gripen design criteria included 800 m x 17m (the latter must be the std highway plus hard shoulders?)unassisted, ie. no arrestor hooks or the like
- when was this DKB writing?
I was in Linkoping when the first (and then only!) prototype crashed – it was as if someone everyone knew had died
I think the issue should also be that capital investment in projects can have a knock on benefit for tens of thousands. What we must do is insist that should investment is spent in the UK – ships and equipment built and procured in the UK, more people in employment, paying taxes, that help fund the capital investment spent.
So at least two more T45s, 16 GCS of which 8 should be ASW, 4 GP and maybe 4 outfitted for Air Defense. Replace Ocean and Argus with BAe’s LHD design, as well as add an extra Astute and maybe built 4x BMTs Vidar-36 SSK design. Procure 8 variants of the Khareef class corvettes (a UK LCS?), demonstrating the modularity of our procurements which can only enhance export possibilities to the likes of India, Brazil, Australia etc.
Likewise, order the Armadillo/Alligator – countries can be encouraged to seriously consider this kit if its own country uses it. Similarly the Ranger MRAV vehicle. Buy the FURY/MANTIS UAVs for the RAF instead of Predator/Reapers.
Other countries seem to do it, why can’t we? Instead we simply seem to buy American.
thing i don’t like ranger is it’s height, it’s over 10ft and that’s before you stick a RWS on it. I know vehicles like RG35 arent that much lower, but when it comes to sticking ‘em into ships and aircraft it all counts!
If were Belgium or Sweden or Germany then to quote the other thread I’ll wake up tomorrow and to the moon and the sun and back before we ever need to use trident. 20b saved right there convension forces can stay even 2 a/c carriers are small change to replacing that.
IXION I disagree almost totally. To put it bluntly, I would say you were nearer a DEFEATIST than a realist!!!
I would agree with many of the posters above, I agree mostly with Dave’s post above.
It is a matter of choice, the US has a much bigger deficit than us but still is prepared to defend itself and fund its defence industry.
On hat specific point, I am doing a post on the DIS Defence Industrial Strategy and the governments how the government has totally failed to keep to its half of the bargain!
We have failed to fund our armed forces properly for decades, that combined with a total mis-management of what funds we have had.
We need to stimulate our economy and the government had stated it wants to increase our manufacturing sector, then go snd slash the T45 orders in half, kicked the T26 in to the long grass, scrapped the MRA4, withdrew from MRAV/Boxer,
Selected the paper Ascod SV design which has destroyed the UK owned armoured vehicle industry in a flash . There is now no chance of BAE land system getting any major orders for the next 50 years. Hell they didn’t even win the Warrior upgrade! Their plants will be gone within 5 years! Which is also in conflict with DIS
Ixion
Just one comment – you have not stated with clarity what threats are defended against with a para-military coast guard instead of a blue water navy ?
I have said it a billion time before, if any UK Government wants to move to a ‘Gendarmerie / Coast Guard / Aerospace Policing’ type setup, then all it has to do is be open and honest about it, give up its nukes and seat at the UNSC and stop “fudging”.
The current HMG was sort of clear in its threat assessment document. It has of course fudged how it thinks we can defend ourselves against those threats – however you have not stated which ones you disagree with, and therefore why we need to board and search UK bound vessels in UK or international waters ?
“However as predicted there were those who seemingly denied not only that the RN should do it, but that anyone should do it because that would attack the RN’s Budget. The ‘we’re not floating rozers’ crowd were out in force.”
I don’t think that accurately sums up my position, but its close enough, so instead of just criticizing, please inform us why you think it is wrong ?
By now we know the “defeatist” set up is easy to achieve
“‘Gendarmerie / Coast Guard / Aerospace Policing’ type setup”
- copy the military part of the French Gendarmerie (17.000)
- copy the Irish Navy to have a military Coast Guard and double it for longer coast line and Gib + FI; that makes 3.000
- and we hear 20 jets are enough: 3 x QRA (North, South and FI, each with 6 and add two for OCU)
We wouldn’t have much to blog about, but could start another one about the morality of armed neutrality?
@ ACC – the book came out at the end of the cold war before the collapse of the Soviet Union – some of its conclusions had to be rewritten due to the First Gulf war.
I’ll try to find what he wrote and pass it on if you like?
@ IXION – I know you are critical of the WASAWPYK argument and you have clearly stated that you feel we are about as influential as Belgium but if we are not a world power with:
The worlds 4/5th largest economy
The Worlds 3/4th biggest defence budget
One of 5 Permanent members of the security council
4th largest stock market by market cap
2nd biggest outward investor
4th strongest currency
2nd larget Aerospace sector
Number 1 military exporter
Nuclear Weapon state
Simon Cowell
then what is a world power? If like you say we should give up then what does that mean for the rest of the world. Should we simply apply to become the 51st state or the 24th provience. I know we all like to deride our own country (its our main national sport) but things ain’t really that bad. We are in difficulty but no more than any of our contemporaries and we are still better off than most both economically and militarily.
Martin adjust your attitude. Everything is shit, everyone is corrupt, nobody has any manners like they used to in the olden days, you can’t leave your front door open, there’s immigrants everywhere, all kids do is stab each other and write rap music, the trains don’t run on time and there’s nothing but repeats on the telly. Oh, and we can’t afford any tanks and every decision made in the armed forces has been made by retards who just do not listen and really, have no idea what they are going on about or doing.
are you living in France ?
@Sol, I see where you are coming from re the interconnectedness but Russia is only resurgent because it is being welled by gas sales to Europe. Now this puts it in the same somewhat precarious position as the Gulf states. Yes they can play hardball and threaten to turn off the taps but that is a serious game with harsh off side rules. The principle source of their revenue and hence military capability is raw materials. They have a woeful manufacturing sector and not a great deal else so whilst they can threaten Ukraine and get away with the same isn’t true of their principal market, Europe. Now throw in a curve ball in the shape of shale gas in Poland and the UK, oil in Canada and the South Atlantic and you have a very interesting dynamic.
I don’t think any of us actually realise the implications of future geopolitical changes brought on by oil and gas being found in not the usual shit holes of the world.
Finally, if you get a moment, would you qualify your statement about our benefits for service personnel being extravagant in comparison with US forces?
@Dave, what does ‘being a maritime nation’ actually mean, how does this translate?
A mighty 2.9% of world shipping is registered in the UK and this is only so ‘high’ because of favourable tax conditions. Equally, we own 2.7% of world shipping by tonnage. The US, China and Germany are the top three, neither of which by the way are islands. In registered flag terms we sit behind the mighty naval powers of Malta and Liberia. Beneficial ownership, i.e. shipping controlled by companies in the UK, we are 12th, behind Denmark, Germany, Norway or Korea.
I would agree with you about shipbuilding but comparing the small army/big navy thing of history and then extrapolating to todays military, economic and political climate just isn’t valid. The big navy small army posture was based on the threat of invasion from Europe and the needs of securing sea lanes against the competition. Are those assumptions valid today?
@Rupert, carrier fast is not automatically the cheapest way of providing cover for an embarked fleet and neither is land based air. Depends on the circumstances and don’t forget, one compliments the other.
@Andy, I have mentioned to Sol before about the strong desire for social spending in Europe because two world wars actually ravaged large parts. It is easy to forget Europe has spent the last couple of thousand years doing nothing but perfecting more inventive ways of killing each other. The USA is a rank amateur in comparison and that is perhaps where the difference in perception lies.
@Phil, yours is a good point but didn’t Henry VIII basically bankrupt the crown
I think what Ixion is trying to get at is that we should still be engaged but realise that military muscle is not always the best route and that we have a huge range of levers that we don’t use enough of.
@Martin, Simon Cowell for NSC Chairman I say
OK Ok I’ll try and same some of this together if i miss anyone out sorry.
Andy
‘Ixion is a managed decline isolationist self flagelating type who would have been in his element in the 1970′s;
Sounds kinky. All for a bit of flagelation. 70′sstyle does that mean she gets to wear platform boots?
On amore serious note the managed declinists, (amoungst whom I do not count myself) were largely correct. We needed to reduce our world role then, we need to reduce our delusions about that role now.
Martin
‘A little increase in the budget back to 2.5% is affordable and sensible. We can easily afford this. Yes times are tough and the government needs to cut back, but our budget deficit (unlike France the number 3 spender) will be gone by 2015′
You can slice that figure many ways but you are looking at approx £6billion increase in defence spending pa. For perspective that’s about 8-9 new hospitals a year… Would that really bring a significant increas in capability.
I repeat my annalogy with Germany. Whose economy and speciffically it’s manufacturing, and shipping, and exporting economy knock us into a cocked hat.
As far as that making us a world power I do not argue we are not I just argue that we lack the ability, to do in reality, that which we claim the ability to do. And so should stop trying to do it.
Why does everyone think I am ‘defeatist’ or have ‘given up’.
This is a serious blog for people who are serious about this countries defence, I put up a series of posts suggesting that we should stop acting like some pathetic has been drunk. Whilst the more sober realists role there eyes, and change the conversation to hide their embarrasment.
Our defence establishment needs to drink the strong coffee…
ACC
Thats a start for home defence, I happen if you and anyone else read my posts you would see I think thats one arm of the forces, the other part is the away team which should meet peoples interventionist fantasy’s more.
Phil
Are you feeling alright, you sound like my dad!
BTW I suggest you study the reign of Henry 7 he was 10 times the opperator his son was; actauly made a profit out of one of his wars, inhereted a banckrupt treasonous country, and handed on a wealthy stable one to his son.
Stealthy Commerce lead diplomacy was his tool.
TD
Spot on!
Just to pick up the point about Terrorism that cropped up,
An MP, a British MP (Labour), was on question time last week and stated that “the threat of Terrorism is grossly over rated”. I personally find this stunning.
Just because the UK has not seen a successful terrorist attack for many years, does not mean that people haven’t been trying. Both here and in the US there have been a large number of potential attacks that have been thwarted. Some have simply failed due to operational incompetence (at least two major attacks in the US and one here).
The threat from terrorism needs to be taken seriously and as we diversify our economy out into off shore wind, the danger posed to those assets needs to be acknowledged, as does the danger to oil platforms. Terrorists will look for easily defended targets and we must be aware of that.
And that’s before we get into drugs, immigration etc. If that’s not a job for the Navy then we should consider a stronger coast guard, that works closely with the Navy for training etc.
We need to be cognisant of the danger.
Chris B
I really think we need to look at this there are so many things a ‘well motivated nutter’ can do.
Hell I’m not nuts (The unicorns tell me so), and I’m not that well motivated. But the list of targets and the ways of hitting them that occur to me are endless. In terrorist terms, We have been getting away with not locking the back door and leaving all the windows open.
There is almost no defence against a well motivated, reasonably intelligent nutter doing people in.
We saw that in Norway.
If they are careful enough and plan it entirely on their own, like a murderer that picks their victims at random, there’s not much of a trail to lead security forces to them.
Other terrorist groups are best defeated using intelligence from multiple sources and then analysing and collating that intelligence in a meaningful way. Which, we are generally quite good at.
Phil
It is certainly true that our biggest arm against the terrorist is intelligence. (Although it took a complete reorientation of our intelligence services to do it).
I agree with IXIONS theory’s, as we need to take a step back and decide were we want to go. However I’m not convinced by his methods. I would prefer an army around 40k to 60k in 2/3 divisions. A larger navy with SIMMS and smaller strike force (pointy fast boats) with 1/2 CVF that with an over all cost is less then the moon( How much have spent on these ships overall?[it could have been saved by updating Nimitz's systems to semi or fully automated]).RAF needs a to wake up and take an interest in something other then +- 300 fast jets.
and yes were not a WASAWPYK. we might be a power but not a great or even a world power
our only enemy well ever face alone is Argentina, everything else will be a coalition!!!
anti-terrorism is an intelligence and/or police matter( mil intel can be used).
I agree that we do need an aircraft carrier of some type
Maybe we should build our boats in Australia or New Zealand or even Canada.
It,s not the concern of the MOD or MOW(min of war) what unemployment looks like.
You know we could hire all the unemployed for 10 pounds a day (3650 per annum X 3×10^6 =10.95×10^6) which is £ 11 million as militia. providing them with all they need except money:)
Andy.
not my blog so i’ll forgo the profanity that would usually accompany me being called a drama queen and sensationalist.
i simply see the world differently from you.
i look forward to watching the European experiment with forming a continental nation state while having differing states within it having no ties, no common language and no reason to unite.
i believe that it will end badly. very badly. if that’s being a sensationalist and drama queen so be it.
@ IXION, £6 billion per year is a significant sum. That could almost double either the RAF or Royal Navy budgets. It could have eaten up the £38 billion black hole in the MOD budget in 6 years.It all depends on how we spend the money. Pulling back as a world power is purely an elective choice. The UK is able to afford a significant military force if it so decides to invest.
@ Admin – “what does ‘being a maritime nation’ actually mean, how does this translate?”
As said in the small-word-big-idea thread:
“Yes of course we need a land army for Defence, but having someone roll tanks over our border on a Friday afternoon is not a scenario that need burden our defence planning assumptions.”
“This gives the UK a greater freedom to allocate resources within Defence as we choose, just as it gives us a greater freedom of orient the army towards expeditionary roles than is the case with our continental neighbours.”
Hi Jedi,
Without answering your question, re this one
“This gives the UK a greater freedom to allocate resources within Defence as we choose, just as it gives us a greater freedom of orient the army towards expeditionary roles than is the case with our continental neighbours.”
- we should combine it with the thought that we should bring to coalitions (those with the US are not the only ones, as we – almost – just saw with Libya)something that others can’t
And therefore (here we go again): ISTAR, tactical networking, deployable Division HQ, AAR, strategic lift, amphib. shipping (not forgetting ship-to-shore capacity, on Day 1 as well as after)…
“we should combine it with the thought that we should bring to coalitions (those with the US are not the only ones, as we – almost – just saw with Libya)something that others can’t, and therefore (here we go again): ISTAR, tactical networking, deployable Division HQ, AAR, strategic lift, amphib. shipping (not forgetting ship-to-shore capacity, on Day 1 as well as after)”
Wholly agreed.
@ ACC, I don’t think anyone could disagree with you on this.
One area that confused me on the Libyan situation was why the British and French needed to use NATO command facilities after the USA drew down. What exactly are we missing in terms of C4 ISTAR to control a coallition operation from London or from the theatre.
good question martin, i have always been hazy on this, tho Jed, AAC and jackstaff seem to have a good grasp on this based on comments at my site.
Someone will know better, but Africa Command (from Germany, and strictly speaking not NATO, but NATO was also out-of-area, so why make a fuss)passed over to Naples after a couple of weeks (took that long to agree that it was a job for NATO!).
Wiki has the official version:
“NATO’s operational commander for Operation Unified Protector is Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard of the Canadian Air Force. His office and staff is located at the Allied Joint Force Command Naples.
- as the emphasis was on air (and targeting, sometimes fleeting targets, as opposed to combined arms operations on a large scale)it made sense to be close. Also logistics and ISTAR in theater are exactly what NATO commands are for ( so lots of exercises, if not exactly with all those forces eventually committed).
@ ACC thanks for that. However it was my understanding that we were providing allot of the ISTAR picture. In terms of C@C was it simply the need for some sort of integrated control room to run the op from. It just seemed strange to me that neither the UK or France had the ability to run a relativley small operation without US or NATO command facilities.
A funny one about NATO compatibility:
When Sweden sent the Gripens they had NATO compatible targeting kit and personnel cleared for it. NATO decided to use a combination of exercise and operational mode on the kit; both existed on the Gripens but no one had ever thought of programming that combination… now they will do it.
Also the Gripens didn’t fly for weeks because they were put to a base where the avgas was by USAF (from their storage, and not compatible) and the Swedes did not check before accepting the basing allocated to them
So it is not enough to have the logical structure agreed; the physical compatibility needs to be checked down to the smallest bolt, almost
“It just seemed strange to me that neither the UK or France had the ability to run a relativley small operation without US or NATO command facilities.”
Maybe we do, but those assets are nominally tagged to NATO ownership. I’m thinking of HQARRCQ (sp?) here.
Why wouldn’t we have used NATO facilities when it was a NATO operation?! I don’t understand.
Martin, ACC and Jedi
I am with Phil on this. Martin to answer your question there is no “technical” reason the Permenant Joint Head Quarters facilities at Northwood could not have run things, however this is a “national facility” and not a NATO command centre. Although UK and France took the political lead, this was a NATO operation, and therefore the nearest appropriate NATO C4I facilities was used – as ACC notes it tooks some weeks to agree that this was a NATO op.
ACC, you may know this, its not clear from your comment, but there is no such thing as “Africa Command” in NATO, AfriCom at Stuttgart is a U.S. forces command – so again, its just the U.S. to NATO move
Exactly what I tried to convey
“it took some weeks to agree that this was a NATO op.
ACC, you may know this, its not clear from your comment, but there is no such thing as “Africa Command” in NATO, AfriCom at Stuttgart is a U.S. forces command”
- had it turned out that NATO was not fit to get its act together, Americans were taking all their actions within a Command chain where they could say a) stop… let’s go home and let them clean up their garbage, or b) go for it, level every legitimate target and then even a dentist walking his dog can take over (governing Libya)
Jed thanks for this. I do seem to remember that the mission did not start out under NATO as the Germans in particular did not wish to be involved. The USA lead the initial assault and then wanted to pass over C@C to someone else. It was probably as per usual the press making a bigger deal of it than it really was.
Does anyone know if we together with the French would have been able to mount a coalition operation like Libya with no US support? I realise that the US played the key role in the opening phase especially launching around 100 TLAM’s to degrade the enemy’s air defence. However at a push using both ours and the French ability to launch standoff missiles from the air and sea we surely could have replicated a similar effect. We have fairly sophisticated satellite communications and with both Rivet Joint, Reaper and ASTOR we could surely build a decent battle space picture. Obviously satellite recon is an area we have always relied on the US for but France has a relatively sophisticated photo recon capability. Both Italy and Germany has synthetic radar imaging satellites and even we have TOPSAT (if it’s still flying) and a whole host of commercial imagery. In addition we have some fairly sophisticated SIGNIT capability in Cyprus and we have complete access to one NSA SIGNIT satellite (which we paid for).
Is there any key capability we are missing to conduct such an operation relatively near to home?
Martin
If a Typhoon can carry 4 Storm Shadows, then it would require two full squandrons
(as per Wibble http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/03/raf-squadron-manning/)
One British, one French, in a mass wave of 16 aircraft to hit 64 targets with storm shadows, and then possibly carry on to attack with laser guided bombs and missiles, or return home.
If as I suspect, they can only carry 2 storm shadows, all 6 Squadrons of the RAF could only cary 96.
Which suddenly makes SSGNs sound all the better.
A single squadron, assuming due to range, a sortie every other day, could only hit 8 targets per day. Which is pretty piss poor.
Missile guestimates as per
http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/swing-role/mission-configuration/swing-role0.html