In the loosely themed SDSR 2015 series of posts I started with a look at the depressing inevitably of leaks, service-centric opinion pieces and general jockeying for position that has characterised every single defence review because the other inevitable result is a reduction in funding.
So begins the ritual of talking about the lack of fat and cutting into the bone, unsustainable cuts, the collapse of capability and the end of the world as we know it.
The reason for all this pain is simple, politicians and service chiefs are simply unable to reconcile their politically expedient resources with their vanity fueled desire to strut their stuff on ‘the world stage’.
This inability to make any big decisions means the time honoured method of a little haircut will be the outcome. Politicians can ride out the short term backbench displeasure about a percent of GDP here or there, throw the service chiefs a few shiny baubles like carriers or stealth jets and pretend all is well. Meanwhile, those Service Chiefs will continue to hollow out their services and kid themselves all is well as they progress towards their retirement Directorships.
The world turns and somewhere a British soldier, airman or sailor will die because of it.
I enjoy talking about defence priorities as much as the next man but a couple of nights ago I thought maybe we should stop arguing about slivers of a percentage point get back to some first principles and think out aloud whether the UK would actually benefit from less defence spending than more or even the same.
Now this might seem completely insane in light of the current belligerence from Russian and Islamic civil war across large parts of the Middle East and Africa but what threats do they actually pose, I mean really. What would be lost because of a perceived lack of prestige and influence derived from our world famous fifth largest defence budget in the world?
If we look back at what advantages accrued from our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq it is hard to put a great deal of value in the benefits column, the costs are pretty clear and service personnel and their families will be paying the price for decades to come. It might be easy to be wise after the event but looking back is supposed to support the learning of lessons. Keeping ones noses out of other peoples business might seem like some to be moral cowardice but others might see the same as prudent, wise and considered behaviour.
The 1998 SDR more or less moved the armed forces to an expeditionary stance, defence at a distance or nipping problems in the bud before they become region-wide conflagrations that threatened world stability, like, err, exactly what is happening now. It was on this basis that the F35, QE carriers, A400M, FRES and various other projects were established. The theory is sound, but it all falls apart when one looks at UK scale and the political realities of intervening without the comfort blanket of a UN resolution. Afghanistan and Iraq have dealt a massive blow to British credibility and our hard-won reputation for foreign policy adroitness and military prowess.
This is not a pacifists charter but a suggestion that a more isolationist defence policy for a period could serve this country better than the expeditionary strategy we continue to kid ourselves about.
The political consequences would no doubt be serious but so what, is this fear of a loss of prestige, status and influence more than the geopolitical and economic reality?
What would minimal self-defence look like?
First on the shopping list would be Trident, that is non-negotiable, it provides the ultimate in defence capability. Everything else would be open for debate but one could envisage a reformed defence capability consisting of a much reduced Army built around an air/sea deployable medium weight rapid response Brigade, MCM/Patrol and enough frigates to secure the SSBN’s, Typhoon and E3. Building from this baseline could be selective capabilities to provide contributions to collective defence agreements and enough to maintain the security of overseas territories.
The money left over from this significant reduction could ensure a number of things;
First; effect the change, reducing at such a radical scale would entail all manner of charges, costs, contract renegotiations, personnel and re-organisation costs.
Second; ensure that the resultant force was sustainable, well equipped and supported enough to ensure it has credibility, even at a much smaller scale.
Finally; spend it on something else, paying down the national debt, building tidal power lagoons, funding a proper apprentice scheme, investing in research & development or keeping within the security domain, improve policing, cyber security and intelligence capabilities
Not sure what percent of GDP or actual spending this would equate to, am not in the business of creating a set of figures from out of my behind, but it would be significantly less that currently, at least after the change costs have been absorbed.
Would the UK achieve greater real security from spending less on the armed forces and more on intelligence and long-term economic investments like education, alternative energy and research and development?
I honestly don’t know.
But it is worth thinking about.
Once again a highly thought provoking article. Thank you. Noticeable by its absence from the televised “Leaders Debate” was anything more than a passing mention of Defence other than some chest out “aren’t we proud of our service men and women” and the usual “No” to replacing Trident. Clearly Ms Sturgeon hasn’t been listening to Putin of late.
The SDR will be yet more posturing and claims for unrealistic capabilities. I remember watching Churchill’s funeral as a boy in the 60’s and even then wondering why our service men were carrying bolt action Lee Enfield Mk4’s and not SLR’s. Seems our politicians never listen or learn and rely upon the dedication, professionalism.and courage when calling on the services to do their bidding.
@ TD – I suppose the big issue would be where would the money go. More international aid, more benefits more NHS.
would any of it really get to science or infrastructure.
If we don’t have an expeditionary capability then our armed forces are likely to tromp round the North Atlantic with little to do but waste money.
also what do we lose as a nation and our self respect.
While it would be a nice position to start again we need to consider a number of points….
1) fire sale of unwanted assets has seen little recompense….ie Harriers ” Sold fora song” comes to mind.
2) How do you reposition staff? Ditch “n” start again..well in its Ltd form that’s blatantly not working now.
3) Establish what capabilities needed? ..see 4) NATO & USA
4) NATO &USA ….We benefit quite a bit from joint projects,Trident is one you know the others.We have a good if at times strained relationship…cutting/altering our position or having a “hippy finding ourselves moment” may not go down so well ….
It may prove further proof to Putin to continue on.
I keep thinking of a bundle of sticks approach…indiv you break ,combined very difficult to.
But what do I know it does worry me though this thought thread it’s a further example of us becoming splendid isolation…doesn’t work go ask the Celts ..Saxon s and all other incumbents
This is a fascinating debate. I am involved in the general election campaign working in my spare time for one of the main political parties. A feature of political campaigning for Parliamentary candidates is being swamped with formula emails people who have an interest in a policy area can send with a couple of clicks from a campaign website, policy briefs from lobby groups, 38 Degrees petitions on this and that.
It is ridiculous and most candidates will not reply to some or all; I know a candidate who has got a volunteer (me) producing replies to every one of them in accordance with the candidates view of the policy. Some others are similarly rigorous, but not many. The incoming volume is in the order of a few hundred per week at the moment for the average candidate. They have no impact on the course of the campaign or any candidate unless they happen to reinforce an existing political view. The flow is only slightly less when Parliament is sitting for MPs.
The relevance of this explanation is that almost none of the emails I’ve seen or heard about during the campaign relate to defence, even in a constituency which has a close link to one of the services. Animal cruelty, the NHS (over and over again), child care, disability care, every kind of thing you can think of relating to public sector provision and welfare, but virtually nothing on defence. It just doesn’t seem to capture the attention of the public in the same way that cat rescue centres do. It is bizarre, because everyone seems to care about care of veterans (there have been a couple of emails on this, less than I would expect for a topic the press regularly flag up), but the actual fighting services themselves hardly merit a mention.
The other striking thing is that just about the only lengthy, properly-written and thought out emails (as opposed to someone clicking to send an email pre-scripted by a campaign site) have been about defence. I think all bar a couple of these have come from ex-service personnel. There have been a handful and they have had very close consideration before a reply has gone out.
If you want defence to matter, you have to rattle the political cage a bit more. The Army and RAF have great lobby groups in Parliament, the Navy much less so outside the few actually naval constituencies. The relative weakness of the Navy today is inevitably seen in my eyes to be a function of that imbalance which stretches back decades. Sorry to ramble on, but I think it’s important to make it clear just how much defence gets out-shouted by the general screaming and yelling about welfare and the NHS!
It’s a Interesting position what we require to secure the British Isles the falklands prioritised maybe also cyprus then the ability to contribute to allied forces operating elsewhere depending on how much we have left in whatever budget we have from completing the first tasks. You could say it’s they way we have fought for century’s. Invest in the intelligence assets to monitor areas of interest. At then end of the day regional disputes can only be solved by the regional actors in dispute.
John really I’d be surprised if that wasn’t the case. Nearly everyone in the country will on a regular basis come into contact with the nhs in some form or have a relative who requires care or assistance from the state and those are powerful motives to write about there experiences.
With afghanistan now a distant memory to the media and thankfully the images of returning flag draped coffins not a regular occurrence on the TV the connection of the armed forces to the masses is slowly receding in days gone by the SAR force or the larger garrison footprint would have keep the public more in touch with the military.
No longer is it the case, like the foreign office and the intelligence services the future of the military will now be tied almost solely to the politions having the courage in standing back and adequately funding a force the general public will have little knowledge off and rarely will it be a vote winning policy. Those seeds are already sown what the whirl wind will look like is probably in the hands of the individuals we vote in.
” I suppose the big issue would be where would the money go.”
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/04/sigar-says-416m-afghan-women-could-go-waste/109207/?oref=d-river
I think that lot will cost 2% or near enough, won’t it, the way we do purchasing?
Some of us have thought for a long time that keeping out of other people’s countries is a good idea. We don’t do large standing armies and the gains appear to be minor when we play at Empire but with a skeleton crew. I want to be able to inflict unacceptable damage on a potential opponent or naughty despot, not foster a cricket team (see recent Army ad.). I want to do this by graduated, nuclear OR, preferably, conventional means.
I’d like a commitment to ongoing programmes, like an Astute batch 2, rather than reinventing capabilities every 30 years (till it stops, someone will remind me, because of 1 election/financial crisis etc.). I’d like critical mass rather than vanity, token purchases for certain politicians to wave aloft despite the lamentable lack of capabilities these platforms often exhibit – as well as being bought in hugely expensive tiny amounts.
I was depressed enough by this sham election. Then came Gabriele’s post yesterday – and now this!
If you want to spend less on defence, isolate ourselves and bring an end to us being an expeditionary power, then hello Denmark! But please don’t cut the defence budget marginally, leaving us with costly capabilities we no longer need. That would be truly wasteful.
Navy:
-Carriers scrapped, never commissioned. No need to order F-35B now.
-Albions scrapped..
-Scrap 4 of the Type 45s. No carriers to escort.
-Cut Type 23 to 8 and order 8 Type 26. All equipped with 2087, as Russian subs are still a threat.
-Cut the MCM fleet to 6 vessels. No gulf MCM commitments.
-OPV fleet increased to 6 new rivers.
-Retain Trident, therefore we keep Astute.
-Royal Marines disbanded, but likely cut to 30% of current strength – because maintaining cap badges is priority.
-RFA scrapped in its entirety, except for the two Wave-class which will be transferred to the Navy. Some replenishment capability is needed.
Army:
-Australia is larger than us with an Army of 30,000. So British Army reduced from 82,000 to 30,000 – but all cap badges saved, even some historic regiments reformed for good measure.
-With such deep personnel cuts the obsolescent vehicle fleet will fix itself naturally.
-Scrap Apache.
RAF:
-Sentinel and Shadow scrapped.
-AEW&C scrapped.
-Tornado scrapped in 2018 as planned.
-Tell Air Tanker to feck off as we don’t need aerial refueling now.
-Scrap C-17
-Mothball half the Typhoon fleet. When the time comes replace it with F-35A.
-Buy 12 P-8 for maritime patrol.
-Keep the order for 22 A400M, as reinforcing the Falklands will still be necessary (stopping off at RAF Ascension to refuel).
Interesting concept. I would suggest that the budget should remain the same as now but we pull back and refocus on defence of the UK, its supply routes (a decently equipped navy that can provide effective escorts to shipping) and a serious UK waters patrol and interdiction fleet to protect and prevent illegal migration (which will eventually come to the UK as it has to Italy and Greece) across the Channel. There is also a serious amount of seaborne criminal activity going on that is not stopped by the pitiful RN OPV fleet and small (unarmed) group of Border Agency patrol boats. I think there are a total of 8 OPVs and BF boats. We probably need at least 20 (armed and dangerous) patrol boats to do a proper job.
RAF should be focussed on national defence of UK airspace and provision of maritime patrol aircraft and anti sub and anti surface warfare within, say, 1,000 NM of the UK. Air defence capability to engage bad guys at range (250 miles at least), and a ground attack capability to ensure we could interdict at up to 500NM from home.
Tankers would of course be a part of the mix.
Army to be built around a home defence capability that could be deployed across into Europe if required. Armour and artillery vital. Let’s work with the Israeli’s and buy some Merkeva’s and some of their best kit.
RN would need to have some capabiltiy to get to and defend Falklands. Cyprus SBA should be abandoned if we are not going to keep meddling in places we don’t have the capability to do effectively.
Cancel the second big carrier and spend the money on useful capability.
TD,
Well, I will admit that I’ve been thinking about this for some time now for two distinct reasons:
1. To ring-fence our homeland defence from silly cuts (like MPA).
2. To allow us to focus our expeditionary capability.
I’ve got it down to ~1% GDP:
4 x SSBN, 4 x SSN and 4 x P8 MPA.
Two RAF bases each consisting of two sustained Typhoon squadrons and 4 x C295 MPA.
A dozen Wildcat capable, 30knot+ frigates.
A highly mobile army using all the Chinook, all the Challengers and all the Warriors.
National service.
Our overseas territories would then get a subset of the above. For example, 6 x Typhoon, 2 x C295 MPA a single frigate and a highly mobile army battlegroup.
The overland mobility of the army is key to countering an invasion.
Everything else is then supplementary.
TD
We both dont like carriers.
Now your talking about getting out of the world police business.
Next you will be agreeing with me about dumping the RAF…
On a more serious note …
Yep it would be a good idea.
“What would minimal self-defence look like?”
Army:
> 5 Brigades
>> 2 Armoured
>> 2 Mechanised
>> 1 Light
>> 1 non-deployable divisional HQ
>> 3 operational AAC regiments
Navy:
> 12 Frigates
>> 2 LPD’s
>> 2 Tankers
>> 2 Mars
>> 9 SSK + 3 SSBN
>> 1 commando + Comacchio Company
Airforce:
> 5 Fighter squadrons
>> 15 Transports (5 Yankees and 10 A400)
>> 5 MPA
>> 5 Awacs
>> 5 Voyager
>> 50 medium and heavy choppers
Everything else enables power projection, and is justified by power projection.
Jedi,
Why do you need an LPD for self-defence?
I agree the SSNs could be SSKs.
because we have overseas territories, and a couple of lpd’s (minus the scale to drop a brigade and the cover to ensure it isn’t sunk), remains quite compatible with peace keeping duties and disaster relief.
the netherlands and demark spring to mind.
self defence does not have to mean retreating permanently into our shell, a-la ireland, a nation of our size will always have obligations of some sort, just look at continental europe. beyond warfighting, quite happy to show the flag.
Jedi
I would say you keep the 2 carriers not the LPDs whatever you can put on there decks is your intervention capability for overseas territories, humanitarian/ peacekeeping role. Eg ocean/argus.
In the airforce you keep/acquire more drones simply because they offer recon capability and reduce training costs as you don’t have to fly them as much or aquire as many as you do with manned aircraft.
In the army a special service brigade seems a gd idea.
As a Kremlin watcher, don’t think it ends at annexing territory in Georgia and Ukraine, this is just the start for the rebuilding of the Russian empire in Eastern Europe. Putin is the most dangerous dictator since Hitler to the international order in Europe. He had a political bargain with the people where they traded political freedom and democracy in return for ever improving living standards. Putin can no longer keep his part of the bargain where the economy has tanked through a combination of low oil prices (which are here to stay for some time ) and sanctions over Crimea and East Ukraine. So he has turned to page 1 of the “Dictators Survival Guide” and is using all of the top recommendations of domestic repression, nationalism, propaganda, a military buildup, creating artificial enemies and wars, all of which are well proven methods to stay in power for at least the short and medium term.
Putin’s recurring nightmare is ending up like Saddam Hussain or Gaddafi with the 2011-12 Moscow demonstrations over election fraud being a wake up call for a possible Ukrainian Euromaiden scenario. To stay in power and survive he needs to be constantly assertive on the world stage and can never afford to lose any adventure without the real risk of being deposed. This means that there will be more wars, state sponsored terrorism (like the Kharkiv Euromaiden 1st anniversary march), the kidnapping of an Estonian security specialist, probing of Western defences, subversion of Western democracies, through left and right wing political parties and unconventional ‘plausibly deniable’ actions and warfare , with ‘little suited men’ and ‘little green men’ with backup from his range of intelligence and military resources as required.
I would suggest you read Red Army General Gerasimov’s doctrine for war in the 21st Century with what has happened in Ukraine a blueprint for much of this.
https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/the-gerasimov-doctrine-and-russian-non-linear-war/
His aim is discredit NATO (the virtually indefendible Baltics are ideal for this) and undermine and split the EU and US and European strategic friendship.
Putin and Russia are spending vast amounts on modernising and expanding their armed forces, although their current economic difficulties will curtail and slow the pace of this. Their elite forces have performed reasonably well in Ukraine, their normal forces pretty badly, so there is still plenty of room for improvement. In Ukraine, they are using mainly old Soviet equipment along with small numbers of their latest equipment where they are using it as a proving ground.
Any territory they take, they will use nuclear blackmail to hang on to it (as we have seen recently in Putin’s first anniversary on annexing Crimea propaganda film), where Putin is playing for keeps. So once it is lost, don’t expect to get it back and the painted broomsticks used in recent German military exercises aren’t a credible deterrence!
WWII started off as three wars that joined up to create a world war. We had Japan invading China, Mussolini invading North Africa and Hitler invading parts of Europe. They were all empowered by Western indifference and appeasement (much like our current stance towards Ukraine), where domestic politics are more important for politicians with few votes in defence spending or foreign policy.
IMO we are 2/3 of the way towards WWIII with a currently a limited war in Ukraine, that may well turn into a major war with Putin’s spring offensive in the next few weeks to try to take Kharkiv, Mariupol, establish a land bridge to Crimea and maybe push as far as Odessa to link up with Russian forces invading from Transnistria (then it will be Moldova). There are an estimated 9,000 Russian troops in the Donbass region, 30,000 troops in Crimea and 30-60,000 on the Ukraine-Russian border. In the Middle East we have Russian and Iranian backed Assad, ISIS, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya and other terrorist organisations which are actively involved in terrorism in North Africa. All we need now is an Asian war, which could be Afghanistan with Pakistan and Iran fighting for control, Pakistan v India over Kashmir, North v South Korea (again) or China going a step too far over disputed Islands in the South China Sea leading to a clash with Japan. Like in WWII there will be strategic alliances formed through these different wars, most likely between Russia, Iran and China with maybe Pakistan or India against NATO and Japan.
Modern wars a these days largely fought with what you’ve got and most European governments, particularly the UK are still cutting budgets and capabilities in a time of massive global instability. IMO this is madness, you might like to think we can sit this out, but we can’t and we won’t where we all have to share and interact on one planet and have defence commitments to our NATO partners. IMO UK and Western European spending cuts and complacency for our defences by our politicians is bordering on a criminal dereliction of duty!
Perhaps you would like to reflect on this and write a follow up blog on how we and the Western world are going to stop sleepwalking into this with our political weakness and appeasement to try and head off WWIII, so it doesn’t happen in the first place (but I personally think we are very close to the point of no return) and if the worst comes to the worst, what capabilities we are going to need, which we are currently lacking and how we are going to win it without a full nuclear exchange?
A certain American blogger thinks your blaming the US… ;)
Well then, seems we really will turn into the Dutch!
(harking back to the mood after the release of SDSR’10)
Jedi,
Surely we’d be better off with the Bays for peace keeping and disaster relief duties?
The notion of attempting to land a commando on our overseas territories without the “cover to ensure it isn’t sunk” tends to imply to me that it will get sunk.
Trident non negotiable, BS. If we are going to be politically unpopular anyway this is the first thing that goes. Saves a load of money an in our new isolationist policy we can shelter under the NATO umbrelka whilst spending some if the trident money on kit we may actually use.
@mike, I was just going to post the same, funny how he has a pop at us whining,
“hello kettle, this is pot send colourstate over” !!!!
A: Belgium.
The “peace dividend” would be spent without anyone being safer, healthier, wealthier, wiser, or more secure in any way.
In 20 years English jurisprudence will come from the Koran, and Stonehenge and the White Horse will be bulldozed.
Sorry, i said LPD’s when i meant LHD’s.
Some comments:
This obviously isn’t going to happen over night. it would take ten years beyond 2015 for it occur politically and militarily, so….
No Bays. They’re gone.
Hmmm carriers, i’d love too, but in this eventuality i’d see them being sold off and the whole shooting match replaced with some juan carlos derivatives.
I’m only hitting the big picture, what we fight wars with (or not). No problem at all with drones and special forces.
Likewise, we’d retain a use for ‘naval infantry’, i’m not saying we’d use a brace of frigates an LHD to storm the falklands with our single commando and some knife fighters.
Big picture, folks.
I don’t see why SLBM and SSBN are holy cows.
Naval nuclear deterrence, maritime surveillance, a miniature army and a small air force seem out of balance considering the only actual collective defence needs.
Isn’t it strange how China, India and Pakistan are universally respected as having a nuclear deterrent even though none of them have a respected SSBN force?
i tend to agree, Sven.
the joy of the deterrent is that it allows britain to configure its forces for power projection and then send them half way round the world without having a shred of worry about how this might go wrong.
if we opt not to interfere in others peoples business any longer, and have a force configured for defence and incapable of going anywhere, then the deterrent becomes less crucial.
especially so when we no longer have SSN’s in which to amortise the cost of SSBN’s.
take this a step further though gents.
you lose your seat on the UN Security Council. you would also lose standing in the G7 (economic power is tied to military power…at least i think so). additionally you would find yourselves in a position of being weaker than France so you would also lose clout within the EU.
quite honestly it would be in line with European thinking but you would become…ordinary.
does the UK want to be seen as just another minor European country? if so then be prepared to suffer the consequences of such a decision. this is more than a loss of military power. prestige, seats at the world table etc…will also be lost. think carefully gents.
“Would the UK achieve greater real security from spending less on the armed forces and more on intelligence and long-term economic investments like education, alternative energy and research and development?”
1st question;
No way, we could not spend less and be more secure. Spend the same and use it better perhaps…… The real threat’s that are emerging seem to be from terrorist organisation’s and in the cyber domain, and a large army will struggle to counter these. However intelligence and special forces can, so let’s maybe refocus there. I could also advocate a smaller army if it got us more equipment, like frigates, trident, typhoons and MPA that we can use to defend our self (more of a deterrence). We’re out of any major land campaign and as you correctly stated, the last ones didn’t do anything good for our international credibility or public opinion. I just don’t see why we need 100,000 men any more.
Any conflict that may require big man power will almost certainly involve the Americans who have boat loads of it available. I would also say it’s easier to regenerate troops than it is fast jets ect.
2nd question;
More interesting…… All government spending stimulates the economy. Defence has been shown to have large multiplier’s on the GDP whilst also creating high tech jobs (assuming it’s spend indigenously). But so have the others you mentioned. Will there be greater economic returns allocaing funds elsewhere? its impossible to call.
I’d say one thing is for sure, defence spending will see a greater return than foreign aid or welfare spending.
@ Rods: I don’t quite see a third World War happening yet (I keep telling people) but there is going to be an upsurge in proxy wars and a “lukewarm war” in the North: Draw one line through Gibraltar and another through finland. West of that versus east of that. Note that the US is only half in it and China isn’t, as China has played a waiting game for long enough now that they seem comfortable sticking to it.
Europe can go either way. I’m no political analyst, but I have some theoretical background in Social and Political Sciences, and if the Ukraine has shown one thing, it’s that Europe is not the a place the world looks on. As I have been told, even the Kosovo War did not create too much public interest here, and that was closer. The Ukraine war had the mandated amount of statements, but besides the NATO and Russia, nobody let off much more than that. The USA are still pivoted to Asia except for appearances (more aggressive rhetoric in the Ukraine, but little action beyond letting the EU try diplomacy and perhaps behind-the-scenes stuff). China made a non-statement and secured a better deal on russian fossil products than they would otherwise have. India doesn’t seem interested from what I can tell (they aren’t as notable a player, and currently shuffling to avoid containment by China). Israel wasn’t too concerned, Turkey also made a deal with Russia (not good) and I can not recall any major statements or commitments by even second or third-rank powers that aren’t in the NATO and mainly in eastern Europe.
That means the stakes in Europe are lower, at least if Putin remains crafty, and he should be able to make more gains. He might slip up due to impatience, perhaps, he doesn’t get younger after all. I don’t see that happen just yet, but it should in a few years. Should that result in a war in Europe the NATO can not wiggle out of, it’ll strengthen the South, who likely won’t participate. Russia may position itself as the foreman of the BRICS nations and claim to champion souvereignty, but it doesn’t have any relieable allies. They might get Belarus (main claim to fame: surprisingly decent computer games industry and the highest alcohol consumption per person worldwide) and perhaps bully a few of the smaller central asian nations into supporting them, but China has always had decidedly different interests, and North Korea is kind of pinned. I would not put it past South Korea to actually attack them if they get weak enough, even if neither country could hold the other. Plus North Korea has no real expeditionary capability, and Russia can only support so many ancient tanks. Manpower might be useful if the numbers are any good, but they probably aren’t. So Russia would basically fight the NATO alone, and I doubt they will try doing that openly if they can at all avoid it. In the first confusion, they could have gotten away with Crimeaing the Donbass, but they only took Crimea and later made a small invasion to set up a siege on Mariupol, despite the attrition and collateral damage the long fighting caused. Materiel was clearly not a concern, and actual gains probably neither. They needed to keep the stakes low, but the background threat a bit higher, so they can act without giving justification for meaningful countermeasures. That has been analyzed to death, so no more on that.
Assuming they either manage to keep the threat level high enough to draw our manifest attention (actually shifting stuff and money to counteract them, whether on the field or with nifty information warfare), or alternatively slip up and cause a not-not-war (that is, a war) with the NATO, then: China can make some larger gestures. Again, I doubt they will just up and Crimea something or even Donbass it, after the Civil War (that resulted in a security council seat changing flags) they mainly acted by proxy, or opportunistically. Their neighbors and possible enemies are not all as destitute as the Ukraine, and the ones who are tend towards their side. China has no strong allies besides Pakistan and their puppet North Korea (which would be starved by now without free Chinese food) but that is two more than Russia (even if North Korea is probably a hot air balloon, they will keep South Korea and Japan hesitant). The USA can hardly fight two “real” wars at once (without their economy collapsing and their people revolting, at least), but I doubt they would let an invasion of Taiwan happen (which China is already subverting a bit, so they might not even be interested). Other than that, the “important” nations, South Korea, Japan, Australia (well maybe). The rest, I doubt it. Stern words, maybe some token support, but not more if Russia looks like an immediate problem (notice they are treated as a strategic problem now) and China doesn’t. The Phillipines got some reassurance and Vietnam got some weapons deals offered, but China has little reason to take more than the islands it already has anyway and whatever flimsy sandcastels the other claimants built on it. That isn’t going to bring larger powers into that war, and without that, the smaller Spratley claimants might as well surrender before a shot is fired. Otherwise it’s Donbass without the notion somebody might try sending any credible support maybe. And no cities to make heart-wrenching collateral damage stories out of (there is one city on those islands, and its a chinese sham city).
Sankaku Islands I think not, too much risk and there are already treaties in place, the value of using them for mindgames is greater than the additional oil that could be gotten from taking the rest of the field, and once production is set up the risk of fighting over it is also greater.
India is an option, but Pakistan would need to initiate that, and they are in no position. Not least because the Middle East affects them, too. Pakistan against Iran isn’t too credible because they have historically good relations (surprisingly enough) since Pakistan isn’t on the Shia hate train the Saudis are running. I would rather look at Saudi Arabia vs. Iran since they had proxy wars since the Iran stopped being named Persia (if not earlier than that). That would just add to the Middle East trouble, perhaps make it spread a bit. But the conflicts there are, for better or worse, of the slow sort. Unlike South America there are no jungles to hide under, but I see this ultimately taking the same direction, reducing security (maybe with a few more terror attacks that ultimately don’t do more than make the world a bit worse one corpse at a time). So unless the IS suddenly grows a conventional army, they probably won’t “win” and become a direct threat that could be part of a world war.
So Asia and Middle East aren’t that volatile where large and middle power interests are concerned (the oil isn’t that important with the current price, especially if Iran joins the world market again). Europe I would actually put on a higher threat level (carefully pruned by some bald guy in a suit) but it’s deliberately kept below immediate, and an overt invasion of the Baltics or something would not reinforce Putin’s hold on power meaningfully. He seems to be leverageing the domestic front more at the moment, probably so the next big media scandal over, what, terrorist attack in Kharkiv can be spun into some other story to keep him relevant. In fact, he needs to draw it out as long as possible, for the same reasons politicians in Europe make budget haircuts and sideline defense issues (I’m fairly sure I said how irrelevant those are in Germany, except when a defense minister needs to be intrigued against). In fact, Putin’s dance number includes pretending there were any candidates that are not him when it’s election time (or that the election is “fair” in a not-Crimea sense). So he’s clearly a modern autocrat (if nothing more).
Another reason that speaks against the WW3 narrative is that both World Wars were based on treaties and empires that effectively spanned the whole world, which is not the case now. The USA has a lot of allies, but only a few of them are at any real risk of getting openly warred (mostly Europe and Korea, maybe Isreal if the Middle East breaks down a bit more), but they’re the only ones. Europe is allied with them, and with Israel (I’m not sure if officially, but I doubt we could justify staying out of that conflict unless Israel is the aggressor). Russia is allied with Russia (technically they’re a federation?) and China is the center of the world (which magnianimously entertains tributaries). Saudi Arabia has a bit of chaff and maybe Egypt, Africa is mostly not, Iran has Russia (I don’t think that alliance would carry, but nice deterrent). South America is currently quire war-less in comparison, even to North America (I’m pretty sure the Mexican drug war is bigger than the Columbian one, and the latter is winding down). No committment anywhere else, either. So while Russia and the Nato might get a nostalgia war, I don’t yet see any triggers that could draw other conflicts onto the world stage like this. They’d just flare up more because nobody is watching. That’s a real problem, because it’s not a credible threat of a world war, so there is no incentive to move accordingly either.
@ actual topic of the thread: While I don’t like nukes (the idea makes me queasy), I think they are a better deterrent than most of anything else, and if a deterrent is not desired, retaining any military at all is difficult to justify. Sure, the situations where they would be used are… well, the only operational usage of nukes so far was halfway between a trial by fire and a doctrine that had been ineffective until then (massive bombardement of population centers to erode the will to fight), and which is not feasible until a real lot of gall has built up. Like from fighting a world war for a few years.
I know they’re too costly for what they realistically achive (deterrence and war crimes) and I would like to bash them with that argument, but if there are nukes, the only credible deterrent is nukes. That problems is as old as nukes. Bah.
Beyond a credible amount of nukes and nuke-vehicles, I agree with the tone of the discussion so far that a coast defense amount of frigates and otherwise Green-Water would be enough – most european powers see it as enough, and while for many purposes it isn’t, for border defense (even if the border is stretched) it should be. The only ones who could beat the European NATO fleet relieably are China (which is clearly not in Europe… well yet. Greece is selling a port to them), the USA (they may complain, but I don’t think they’re quite so far to attack us) and Russia with a question mark. I reconsidered submarines after following this blog for a while, and Russia has many submarines. Europe does too, but probably not enough (seas are pretty big). But Russia doesn’t have enough fleet to destroy ours and then maintain naval supremacy in a meaningful way, not by my reckoning.
Any thoughts, incongruent complaints I was a russian plant, insults of my nationality (which I am not actually proud of, beyond the minimum requirement)?
I am afraid we have the usual “lump of money” fallacy. The Government isn’t sitting on a fixed sum of money to be spent on A or B. Tax revenue comes from economic activity. Basically, if the economy revs up, the same “amount” of money circulates faster, and people pay taxes on it more often, and the tax take rises. Vice versa if the economy slows down.
The proposal here is basically for the Government to spend less on defence, which means less defence production, a dwindling defence industry, less defence-related exports, possibly seeing one or more major defence contractors leaving for North America, and at the end of it the Government could possibly have *less* in its annual budget, not more, due to less economic activity and rising unemployment causing rising social spending.
The Government spending its money is not like you and me deciding between a coffee and an ice-cream. When Government spends, it stimulates this industry, and not that one. Cutting defence spending cuts manufacturing, and probably not in a linear way. That is, you can’t cut defence spending and expect the defence industries to contract smoothly and gradually. At some point, the UK ceases to be a viable home market, and they shut up shop, leave, and from then on we have to import everything they used to make in the UK. In effect, we pay to create employment in some foreign country’s defence industry, having run down our own.
And, even supposing the running down defence doesn’t increase unemployment and increase social costs, thus cancelling out the “savings”, you won’t find that just throwing the money at education will help educational quality. There is no direct mechanism that translates a bigger teacher pay packet into better teaching. Tony Blair tried that, and it was a flop.
@Sazuroi
“complaints I was a Russian plant,”
Ok… if you want it, you’re a Russian cactus. Or Venus Flytrap? Do they have venus flytraps in Russia?
All in all, a very nice summary.
@sol
The UN seat is historical, not based on power, it’s simply the group of countries that “won” WWII, there was never a time where power was charted and seating assigned based on ranking, so the UK will almost never lose their seat simply because tradition is people too lazy to change things.
@Rods
I see the Russian response to the mess in Ukraine as reactive not active and why is it that everytime someone in the West does not like someone, he calls that bugger Hitler? It does seem shallow to say one equals the other and is a facet of lazy thinking. Look at it from Russia’s point of view, an ally was disposed in a revolt and he fled to Russia asking for help. Isn’t Russia obliged to support him as an ally? If they didn’t, then what use is an ally for? Unfortunately by now, the new rebel regime has international recognition and is poised to cut off Russia’s access to the world (Crimea), hence the need to reclaim the port, and most people have forgotten this, neutralise the navy, hence all the chasing around of Ukranian Navy ships during the takeover.
In this, I see Russia as reacting instead of acting, they didn’t really have much choice, a hostile power in Crimea is unacceptable to them similar to someone taking over the Suez canal. If you recall, that resulted in a 3 power invasion of Egypt. Now that they have Crimea in hand, I doubt they’ll expand further, their primary goal has been met.
This is what I can see being kept due to being too politically sensitive for any party to mess with, coupled with the desire of the politicians and the white male baby boom generation to keep the UK ‘relevant’.
1. Trident
2. Both carriers will be kept (one in readiness) due to the money being spent on them and bad press due to cost they have received.
3. F35B will be kept, so as to keep the carriers viable and of course jobs etc
4. MPA will be revived also due to bed press and obvious need.
5. Para’s, guards and RM will go untouched in any meaningful way.
6. Type 26 will go forward but probably reduced numbers.
Everything else will be on the table to be cut.
…Russian response to the mess in Ukraine as reactive not active…
Is it fair to say you mean opportunistic?
Like a thief taking advantage of you leaving your front door unlocked?
Draw away our attention. Leave the door open. Slip in and take Moldova, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, and lastly Lithuania. Obviously if that goes to plan the rest can follow.
It’s what I would do.
Oh, I wouldn’t necessarily use force… installing a “friendly” power base would be the way to go. Create the divide and then “defend” the Russian quarters.
My gut feel tends to fall more in line with Rods’s view of emerging difficulties although my fervent hope is that its slower in development than Rods believes.
I do however accept that there is a degree of goading as Obs notes, in that the EU particularly was more than happy – perhaps a bit mischievous – to encourage the pro-EU rebels (which is what they originally were) in Ukraine to rise and usurp power. There was a pro-Russia government; it fell to a popular uprising that had been convinced the path to prosperity was through EU membership, a view encouraged by various Eurocrats. When the inevitable hostilities erupted the EU hand of friendship was whipped back at breakneck speed with the same Eurocrats muttering that the difficulties in Ukraine were an internal matter; how horrid Russia was being; what a terrible fate Ukraine brought upon themselves (oh and its nothing to do with us in the EU obviously). It begs the question if Vlad the Bad’s attention moves to the Baltic states, now formally within the EU, would Euro-Central be just as quick to hide behind the sofa? If not, we are back to rods’s scenarios.
As for Russia re-equipping of its armed forces, I have only really noted a ramping up of the Army equipment programmes. The aircraft development seems to be moving no faster or slower than through the post-Cold War period (which saw MIG-29 and SU-27/34 brought in), and apart from the slow build programmes of Yasen and Severodvinsk submarine classes the Russian Navy seems to be making do with current stuff. Although there are a very large number of elderly nuclear boats bobbing around Polyarny that may or may not be capable of setting to sea.
It is clear Putin is a bullish character and will naturally rush towards confrontation to support and protect his political position at home. In the face of such a character its hard to see what strategy best works for the rest of the world; I suspect quiet but resolute and stubborn rejection of his wild claims would in the long term force him to wilder and yet more unbelievable rhetoric until the Russian people tell him to go. But that might take a long time and on that journey any one of his anti-West actions might trip beyond the limits and trigger bad bad hostilities. Not comfortable times.
The islamic issues are not showing signs of quieting either; and are even more difficult to counter. I noted before the only defeat those on a mission from God would accept is one they believed was God showing his extreme displeasure at their actions. This on the grounds that they accept no other authority, hence no other authority can subdue them. In their belief. That makes conventional territory and political regime based warfare far less effective. Difficult to know how to counter this unless the butchers are convinced of their falsehood by those of their own faith. Until then, appalling butchery is likely to erupt all over the place against which local military suppression would be needed (to control the symptom if not the disease). Also not comfortable times.
Personally I never saw cause for any post-Cold war peace dividend. The most optimistic times were when Gorbachev tried to soften the Soviet position towards the rest of the world – had the USSR managed to move in a controlled manner towards trading openness with those it ideologically despised then maybe at least that current problem would have been avoided. The fracturing of the Soviet State (much like the break-up of Yugoslavia) exposed rifts between factions and ethnic groups and gave them borders to defend and enemies to fight. At no point since the Wall came down have I thought to myself that the World is safe and war is over. Not once, not ever.
I have been in (at least) two minds about defence priorities for a long time.
I have learned to wince at that politicians’ favourite phrase concerning foreign affairs and defence: “punch above our weight”. To me, that translates as “delusions of grandeur, usually expensive”. Our use of military force in the Arab world over the last dozen years or so has, as far as I can see, been almost entirely counter-productive. So why do we bother maintaining the capability to intervene in this way? It only tempts the politicians to practice their macho struts “on the world stage”.
On the other hand, I can see a case for maintaining the ability to intervene internationally in more limited ways, in policing-type duties where our interests are threatened, for instance over piracy. However, we don’t need fast-jet carriers for that – just general-purpose helicopter-carrying vessels with amphibious capabilities which can be very useful in disaster relief, evacuations etc as well (and that’s the kind of capability our foreign aid budget should be spent on).
In 2010, when the UK was seriously broke and it was clear that major cuts had to come, I was baffled by some of the decisions. Over the carriers, there were two obvious alternatives: keep the plans for the new carriers and the F-35s and in the meantime keep the existing Harriers and their carriers; or cancel the new carriers and the F-35s and scrap the Harriers, then acquire more LPHs like Ocean and marinise the Apaches to provide close support where needed (my preference, given the state of the finances). Instead, we got a dog’s breakfast that made no sense.
As for MPAs – well, I don’t actually criticise the scrapping of the Nimrods because the constant upgrading of these ancient hand-built hulks had gone way beyond a joke, but at that time various nations were disposing of perfectly good P-3 Orions to save costs, so we could have picked up a number of decent MPAs at very low cost until the P-8 (or maybe the Japanese P-1?) was available.
The nuclear deterrent is another headache: the fact that it is now lumped in with the defence budget just emphasises that it is taking a relatively larger share of that budget as most other spending shrinks. In terms of practical, usable benefit it would be better to spend money on kit we would actually use, but I regard it as a painfully expensive insurance policy that it’s probably better to hang on to in present and foreseeable circumstances.
So, what do we really need? To be able to defend our country and the skies and seas around it, and in other places which depend on us (e.g. the Falklands); to be able in conjunction with allies to defend the key maritime trade routes on which we depend (to some degree that needs thinking about rationally – we can’t cover everything); to be able to come to the aid of allies in certain carefully-determined ways (not including massed armour and boots on the ground).
I would keep the SSNs as they are a deterrent in a different way, and besides we really need both SSNs and SSBNs to provide the numbers needed to keep our capability to design and build nuclear subs viable.
Concerning escorts, I think that T26 is likely to be more appropriate than T45 (especially since Sea Ceptor has a much longer range than Sea Wolf, so can provide cover for a small task force rather than just self-defence). Actually, I rather like the Danish Absalon class support ships, which seem exactly the kind of warship likely to be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_support_ship
TW.
There are amongst contributors to this site a big bunch of Absalon fanboys.
Observer.
We have had this row already. But…..
People on this site love there historical parallels.
Talk about becoming less interventionist, and someone will shout Pearl Harbour, as an example of the dangers of isolationism. Some one last week used the Saxons as an example ffs.
However the historical parallels between the actions of Putin and that of the early Nazi regime are there, they are real and they are numerous. We ignore the little chest shaving shit at our peril.
@ Tony Williams. I think the only reason the carriers were not scrapped in the 2010 review was that the contract ensured that it would have cost more to scrap them than keep them.
A number of posters have mentioned the possibility of drastically cutting the army and specialising in special forces. I would be interested to know whether that is feasible. Do you not need a sizeable professional army from which to draw your special forces?
@ tony williams – “Over the carriers, there were two obvious alternatives: keep the plans for the new carriers and the F-35s and in the meantime keep the existing Harriers and their carriers; or cancel the new carriers and the F-35s and scrap the Harriers, then acquire more LPHs like Ocean and marinise the Apaches to provide close support where needed (my preference, given the state of the finances). Instead, we got a dog’s breakfast that made no sense.”
It did make sense, for the same reason that a temporary withdrawal from MPA made sense:
1. The British public had no stomach for further interventions in the during years of Herrick with Iraq fresh in their minds.
2. The armed forces were exhausted, and need five years beyond Herrick to recover, re-resource, and return to a rounded training regime.
3. Invincible/Harrier’s were expensive legacy platform that would not be needed until #1 and #2 above had sorted themselves out.
A couple of LPH’s with marinised Apaches is the right response for a Britain that has withdrawn from the interventionist responsibilities expected of small/advanced UNSC nations like ourselves and France.
This was not what was wanted, however.
I do rather think that our SSNs underpin much of our naval power projection capability and therefore the other side of the deterrent coin.
Once you have them in place the SSBNs and RFTG become much more viable.
If we ditched Trident then how many SSNs would we have to build to maintain intellectual currency? Could we build 6 SSN and 6 SSK?
I have no objection to ditching ssbn’s, as long as what remains is sufficient in scale and frequency to maintain a viable nuclear boat industry.
If we do ditch them I’d like a 4 pack cmc module in future SSN’s tho.
Some perspective If we go with just numbers we in the west may have cut a lot but we still have a sizeable fleet of aircraft anyway..
“According to IHS Jane’s World Air Forces , the EU member states have approximately 1,370 fighters between them (as the EU Air Force is being billed as defensive, only aircraft with a predominantly air defence role have been counted), compared with 1,391 air defence fighters for the United States, and 1,276 combat aircraft for Russia (as the perceived threat, attack aircraft have been included in Russia’s figures also).”
Assuming a £20b annual budget for military it would equate to a force of 100k personnel costing £10b with £7b equipment budget and £3b for operations. Spread as so:
Navy £3.5b
RAF £8b
Army £6b
Medical £1b
Cyber £1.5b
The above means that we will become a home defence force only, we will have to remove all personnel from non uk bases that arent paid for by the local population (inc Falklands) and we will be a member of Nato in name only. The RM would become our only high readiness brigade and the Para’s will probably be disbanded or moved into a joint unit with the RM’s (which is madness).
The RAF is the big winner as we will need more air assets than we currently have to defend our country and be able to reinforce through a modern helicopter fleet.
No military help fo aid missions – this will need to be fully funded elsewher – the Foreign aid budget can use its own ships and pay for them as well.
Scrap trident and go for nuclear cruise on the Astute class and accept the loss of the ballistic capability.
Put all non nuclear cruise into T45’s (£400k cheaper per missile against a submarine fired cruise).
@Mark: Comparing using 3 completely different measures? Doesn’t add much perspective.
For example with the US you’ve only counted the USAF and only some of it’s A2A capable types, ignoring completely the ANG’s F15/16’s and most damningly the USN(inc USMC), the worlds 2nd largest air force. While seemingly counting every single EU fighter capable of A2A.
Whoever came up with those numbers was more interested in the appearance of parity than reality.
The cut to a much lower military budget would also kill off one of the last major manufacturing skill sets left in the uk and for places like Barrow in Furness – create no go areas of mass unemployment.
I think an even bigger question is why does France have a larger footprint with great equipment given the budgets are similar. Why can GErmany be a major exporter of equipment given its tiny budget.
Why is it that the UK is not getting value from its current budget – which should actually be good enough, but isnt because of gross mismanagement.
In business terms the Miltary needs to commit to purchasing a volume of units per annum to keep a capability and get the best price instead of the famine and feast model preferred in the past.
I suggest a 30 year building plan for the Navy and Army and a 18 year plan for the Airforce this is based on asset lifecycel when they should be replaced by New equipment as we seem to spend more on upgrades than actually buying new.
Build 1 T26 per year for the next 30 years @ £400m each
Build 2 Corvettes per year for the next 30 years @£150m each
Build 1 other vessel per year over the next 30 years @ £400m each (1 sub every 3 years)
Corvettes are needed to get force numbers with lower personnel running them.
Scrap T45’s as they become obsolete and settle on a frigate/corvette navy.
RAF
12 F35 (or similar) per year
12 Typhoon (or similar per year)
16 All Others ( 8 Trainers – 8 Logistics/specialist)
£3.2b per annum
16 Merlin per year
16 Apache (or similar)
4 Chinook (or Osprey)
4 Wildcat
£1.2b pa
Army
8 Combat Brigades of 7.2k personnel (4 combat Regiments of 1200 personnel + support)
Core Logistics of 14.4k personnel
Medical Brigade of 14.4k personnel
Cyber Brigade of 14.4k personnel
SFG + Cnc of 7.2k personnel
Size of Land Forces = 108k personnel but does provide for a true heavy and expeditionary force or mix thereof whilst having separately funded and largemedical and cyber units.
Note: The above incs RM excludes all air assets which transfer to the Airforce.
Each Brigade will have
Assigned air assets (2apaches & Merlins for the 4 expeditionary Brigades and 48 Apache & Merlins for the 4 Mechanised Brigades)
Fres assets for the heavy Brigades
No New Tanks
64 MLRS for each of the 4 Mech Brigades
Utilise all assets from Afghanistan to the full.
We are withdrawing all our heavy forces from mainland Europe and these forces are not required in the UK, as if it came to that point I am sure that a tactical nuclear strike would be deployed or that our air superiority will have been reduced to the point of no return anyway.
The above can be done on current budget – but needs a far better approach to procurement and buying equipment at best price where the UK are just not competitive ( we can buy apaches at £20m each – so why arent we).
Both France and Germany have impressive industrial capability (as does denmark and Sweden) with far more limited defence budgets – so just what is the UK getting for the £2b R&D budget.
I dont think people want us to spend less on defence – but it should be more visible how defence spending adds to the UK economy and military top brass have been very poor at managing budget and proving the benefits to the wider economy of this spend.
correction – should be 24 apaches and Merlins for the epeditionary force.
The military should also take over mildenhall as it is a fantastically equipped base that has been heavily invested in for 50 years and would make a good joint base for the army and airforce, given the training areas nearby (thetford etc).
@clinched: “I think the only reason the carriers were not scrapped in the 2010 review was that the contract ensured that it would have cost more to scrap them than keep them.”
What was the penalty charge for breaking the contract? Somewhere around £1 billion IIRC. A small fraction of the cost of the carriers, and then you need to add the cost of the F-35s without which the carriers are giant white elephants – and the planes will very likely cost more than the ships.
@jedibeeftrix “A couple of LPH’s with marinised Apaches is the right response for a Britain that has withdrawn from the interventionist responsibilities expected of small/advanced UNSC nations like ourselves and France.”
The only time you need carriers with F-35s rather than Apaches would be for strikes against a well-equipped enemy with modern armed forces. For which we have SSN with Tomahawk missiles, with the possibility of installing the same (or similar) on T45 and T26 if we want to. Much lower risk, and also very much lower cost given that we’ll have the ships and subs anyway.
The UK needs to remain a military power and as Blair said, remain in the first rank of nations.
An Army of 100,000, 82,000 or 62,000 is irrelevant. While we will always be globally respected for a highly trained professional army, we will never be considered a military power because we can sustain a brigade anywhere in the world indefinitely.
The RAF and Royal Navy are our best methods of remaining a military power.
We probably have the best medium sized air force in the world, and besides the French and Americans, can deliver a pretty hefty and impressive capability anywhere on the planet (when the political will is there). Standoff weapons such as Storm Shadow also give us a strategic capability, but without the collateral.
The RAF needs increasing from 7 front line squadrons to 8, easing overstretch. I would also like a modest increase in funding directed towards aircraft availability. To do this I would keep the current 5 Typhoon squadrons and fund 3 F-35B squadrons (which would also allow us to surge the QE-class air-wing to maximum).
10 P-8 for maritime patrol should be ordered and look toward modifying 5 to fulfill the ISTAR role of Sentinel. This would promote commonality, reduce training and maintenance costs and allow for 5 P8 to focus on the maritime and the remaining 5 to swing from both ISTAR and maritime patrol.
The rest of the air force would stay as planned.
The Navy is our most hard done by service, yet is the most critical to our defence, protecting our overseas interests and is our primary tool of power projection.
1. Both carriers need to come into service as planned, with one at a reduced state of readiness.
2. A commitment to 13 Type 26 frigates should be set in stone.
3. Plans to replace the Albions with two LHDs. Two Mistrals can be crewed with almost the same number as people on one Albion – so automation is key.
4. An extra River class OPV should be ordered.
5. Continue developing the UUVs for MHC with the French, but the “mother ship” should be a 3,000 tonne modified River with a Merlin capable flight deck, a mission bay and 3 x 30 mm guns. Approximately 12 should be ordered to replace the current MCM vessels and the two Echo class. A small pool of Phalanx CIWS should be ordered so any vessel heading to the gulf has adequate protection.
6. An 8th Astute should be squeezed in before the new SSBNs. I don’t care how much it will cost, with a bit of courage we can afford it.
7. CEC on Type 45 and the QE-class, later on Type 26.
8. Some bloody momentum on MARS SSS, with a 4th modified to replace Argus.
9. Increase personnel.
I think the above is easily affordable with the Army cut to 62,000 and a flat budget until 2019. The RAF and Royal Navy would get a massive morale boost, especially the Navy who gets an investment in both personnel and equipment. We all know they need it more than the other two services. More importantly, we remain a military power with considerably more capacity to project power than we have now.
The way we use the British Army needs rethinking, and to do that we need to think outside the box. Army capabilities need cutting in their entirety.
Do we need GMLRS? Too much collateral, plus the Type 26s and SSNs with Tomahawk and F-35s and Typhoons with Storm Shadow can do its job.
Do we need Apache? Or just increase Wildcat?
‘we will never be considered a military power because we can sustain a brigade anywhere in the world indefinitely.’
That is precisely why we are considered a military power. The ability to sustain sizable Air/Land/Sea forces that can influence events for an indefinite period away from home is what makes a military power and is the sort of capability that will need to be cut if we want a purely defensive force.
‘The Navy is our most hard done by service’
Why?
@ tony w – “The only time you need carriers with F-35s rather than Apaches would be for strikes against a well-equipped enemy with modern armed forces. For which we have SSN with Tomahawk missiles, with the possibility of installing the same (or similar) on T45 and T26 if we want to”
I hadn’t appreciated that the defence planners had no idea what they were doing when crafted a specification for carriers with an amphibious task group!
@DavidNiven
Germany had around 5,000 troops in Afghan for many years. Not far off our SDSR target of a 6,500 sized brigade. Germany is not considered a military power.
Sustaining 6,500 troops anywhere in the world indefinitely hardly makes us a military power. Just a “meh” from the Americans and “sure, I guess it couldn’t hurt if you tagged along”.
Besides, without the public or political will to even engage in those types of operations anymore. What good is it? Plus, we could probably achieve than number with an army 62,000 anyway and the savings could be redirected to where it matters. Armies are comparatively easy to build up in a national emergency, navies and air forces aren’t.
If we could sustain a division (say 20,000 troops) anywhere in the world indefinitely, then sure. But we can’t.
@WhitestElephant
‘Sustaining 6,500 troops anywhere in the world indefinitely hardly makes us a military power’
I agree it doesn’t, what makes a military power is the ability to sustain 6500 troops plus the ability to sustain both Naval and air forces to support the 6500 troops, which is what we are capable of.
How many nations supplied sizable air,sea and land forces at the same time to any of the operations from Op Granby through the Balkans to Herrick apart from ourselves the Americans and France?
@Simon and IXION
Maybe you can’t see the amount of trouble Russia would have been in if it lost all port access. That is a near critical blow to their economy, even more so than any “sanction”. If you want a better comparison, that would be the US blockading Japan (funny how that part of the story seems to be left out whenever someone talks about WWII).
People keep drumming about how sea access is important, but seem to forget applying it to the decision making process of other countries. Even if the sanctions on Russia were much worse, Putin would still have gone in, sanctions are just a fleabite compared with what losing sea access would have cost Russia.
Sometimes you just have to turn the table around to see the other person’s point of view to predict what he will do. In this case, Putin had 2 choices, one bad, (sanctions), the other one disasterous (loss of access).
So I won’t call him “Hitler” or “opportunistic”, just cornered and bullheaded.
As for historical comparisons, personally I found that you can compare anything with anything else, though you might need to massage the scenarios a bit, which makes it lose all credibility.
Anyway, long story short, I doubt the UK is going to see Russian advances anywhere else for the near future, which brings us back to the real topic, UK defence.
The biggest area you can cut safely that I can see would be your infantry. The rest can’t be regenerated fast. Stockpile armour, maintain the RAF and RN. This is probably the safest bet.
And a decision has to be made on what sovereign manufacturing capabilities are to be kept and what can be bought off the shelf cheaper.
@jedibeeftrix: “I hadn’t appreciated that the defence planners had no idea what they were doing when crafted a specification for carriers with an amphibious task group!”
I presume that would have been in the context of a major amphibious landing against a near-peer enemy in which case, yes, you do need the full panoply of support capabilities (including far more F-35 than the RN seems to be envisaging will be carried). Frankly I doubt that we are capable of landing a major force in that way any more – probably only the USMC can do so.
The context in which I was discussing was one in which we do not attempt any such operation, but have amphibious forces for “police actions” against pirates, insurgent forces etc.
Should we need, for political reasons, to join in with a US action against a near-peer enemy, then we can do so (as we have before) with sub-launched Tomahawks.
Re sanctions, how easy would it be to effectively close Russia down on trade routes? Clearly, not a total loss of access, as that would involve China, which won’t happen.
But say the Baltic, Black Sea, and Arctic ports. Plus all of the pipelines….
The question of why Germany’s defense industry is doing so well despite our smaller budget came up: It’s because exports to NATO countries don’t need a direct parliamentary license for every deal (as far as I know), unlike exports to other countries. However, even the licenses for deals with other countries were forthcoming, since the policy is mostly about decreasing trade barriers instead of stimulus. It didn’t hurt the companies themselves have some acclaim. So they basically carry themselves, and while the Bundeswehr is a big customer, it’s not the only one. In effect, the arms industry is getting the kind of benefits other industries enjoy, plus a somewhat relieable large-scale customer, plus the export opportunities that just seem to be happening.
I doubt there is any qualitative difference between how this is handled here and elsewhere, but it works and it’s left alone to work further. If anything, the risk is the companies themselves running off (because employees cost too much) or public opinion demanding restrictions (I just googled some numbers, but didn’t find any, only a mountain of outrage about German arms trade stretching back years. Domestic outrage, that is).
RT, it would be fairly easy, just stop travel to the country and shut off the pipes, but 1) cutting a trade route affects both ends and 2) it’s a card that can only be played once, because once that happens, the person embargoed will look for other sources of supply and avoid you. This is why Indonesia avoids US made equipment, they were hit once and refuse to be at risk again.
And point 3) they’ll end up best buddies with China. Lord knows what mischief those 2 can get up to if allied.
Observer.
I am in favour of a complete withdraw from our role as world community support officer, (we have lost the ability to be world police). We can build a realistic defence capability the day we stop talking ourselves into the paranoia that every terrorist breeding shithole is ours to sort out.
The middle east is a mess. In the absence of a full on western crusade to invade and crush ISIS, we should stay out of the nasty little race wars, and big upcoming 100. Years War style Sunni Shia massacre and counter massacre. Our ‘Allies’ the Saudis get all equivocal, and ” our forces are not able to confront (Sunni) ISIS,” about ISIS and AQ, but are prepared to put out military force in an Anti Shia war in Yeman… With friends like these who needs enemas………
So lets stop kidding ourselves we ‘NEED’ carriers deployable brigades etc: -we don’t. Our mindset of the last 200 Years needs a reset.
BTW Nobody was going to take Russia’s port access away from it What he did was an annexation by force of the sovereign territory of a council of Europe member…..
Ok, so if we are going to reset our mindset, then we should have a home defence force with 16 squadrons of fast jets, a modern navy and become the world leader in humanitarian aid.
For the latter we should create a large scale force that a) is linked to universities to train nurses and doctors on a far greater scale than currently b) has a set of hospital and support ships, helicopters and transport aircraft that can get aid to where it is needed and 3) be able to interchange and support the NHS and our military in times of need. This force should be circa 30k personnel.
If we are going to drop fro our role of military partner to the US, perhaps we should become the key driver of delivering aid for the world.
The above is probably not what you all want to hear – but at least it will maintain a set of assets that can be used in times of need (does anyone remember all of the merchant ships requisitioned for the falklands).
I am against foreign aid that is just giving money away, I am for it if our armed forces are delivering it.
Defence of the UK is primarily a role for the Navy and RAF and to do this properly will cost a minimum of £18b, after that it is what you want to spend on everything else.
I think this is ultimately an organisational thing as Israel and even the USMC get better VFM than Britain and it is that what needs to be addressed
Philip Hammond has done a great job, pity he was moved to the Foreign Office before completing the job.
“So lets stop kidding ourselves we ‘NEED’ carriers deployable brigades etc: -we don’t. Our mindset of the last 200 Years needs a reset.”
We have the worlds 5th largest economy, 90% of our imports come by sea, we have global interests to protect and global stability is key to this nations stability and prosperity.
Very very few nations find itself as capable (or as well placed) as Britain to maintain that good order, albeit as global lieutenant to America – but is that a bad thing?
We are by no means a small nation as many would like us to become. I do not think we should prematurely resign ourselves to home defence and rely on the Americans or NATO to do everything for us, while only contributing in a junior/minor way.
That day will inevitably come, when our capabilities are no longer relevant, because China(?) the EU and who knows what else emerges better placed to tackle global stability with the Americans. But we are not at that point now.
We have a long way to go yet, before we are Little England.
The lessons of the past are that we do not resource our military properly and that this costs lives.
whether it is dodgy ship radar in the falklands or a total lack of body armour and vehicles in afghanistan – this lack of attention to our troops welfare must stop.
The above must not be repeated and we should think very carefully about committing troops that do not have the right equipment, even making it illegal to send troops into theatre without a pre-agreed list of equipment for each engagement type.
Where a coroner finds that troops have been sent to theatre without the appropriate force structure or equipment, the Government of the day should be prosecuted as should the heads of the military who sanctioned the order to deploy.
Unfortunately, the only people who pay the price for our skinflint politicians are those people in th forces protecting our freedom. It is a national disgrace that our forces are sent into theatre without the right equipment and this must stop with SDR15 where clear parameters of force type and engagement type are clearly articulated and placed into the military covenant.
Pacman27 – I fear such cast-iron rules would backfire. Agreed all efforts should go to making the deployment as safe for the personnel as operationally possible, but if there is a very real threat of manslaughter actions if any forces personnel are lost, then the direct reactions are 1) the politicians will never commit forces no matter what ills may result, 2) the only deployments would be so over-stuffed with protective measures as to be operationally impotent, 3) if real military advantage could be gained by committing specialist personnel to high risk low survival tasks then Command will not pursue the advantage, 4) the politicians would soon realise the military had become pointless and would shut them down to buy more votes in health & welfare.
Its an unappealing truth that the military are at their most effective when risks are taken; sometimes things don’t go well, sometimes they really work out. Castrating the strategic decision-makers would result in a toothless paper tiger.
So by all means equip the personnel with the right kit for the task; give the senior military a veto on deployment if preparation is inadequate if you must, but once deployed the military commanders have to be free to take unpalatable decisions in order to achieve their military objectives. In my opinion.
@TD: Interesting question, but we shouldn’t fall into the trap that defence starts at the 12nm limit. I’m not saying we should intervene in far off lands as much as we have, especially on self gratifying humanitarian wars, but remember that attack is sometimes the best form of defence.
Putting aside any invasion by our European neighbours, invasion is either going to have to over land throughthem (and over the channel) or via the sea.
@Chris
“So by all means equip the personnel with the right kit for the task; give the senior military a veto on deployment if preparation is inadequate if you must, but once deployed the military commanders have to be free to take unpalatable decisions in order to achieve their military objectives. In my opinion.”
And Sun Tzu ‘s
With that spending we must remember the 12 dependent territories, 3 crown dependencies and there EEC claims. So our responsibilities have to include all there 200 mile trade areas. Then we have all our international treaty agreements with other countries that we have to fulfil. It makes deciding on funding very difficult.
as brings up a valid point on our home waters and overseas commitments. We need to maintain a global intervention reach of some sort as our overseas commitments are global. We cannot rely on so called allies to help as politics is a very fickle thing with relationships changing at the tick of a voters card. What one government could relied on could be out of power the next day an a much more belligerent one in its place with greatly differing views. Myself I feel our interventions in GW 2 and Afghan were not our party ( always have thought so to , their were very much more subtle ways of executing regime change in those places ) and similar ones are to be avoided in terms of large numbers of boots on the ground unless essential . What’s essential is the difficulty though as it the time to strike early is usually long gone because of political and therefore legal wrangling. Far to much is wasted in the defence of Europe as a whole due IMHO the insular nature of the defenders policies I have iterated before that there is no nation on earth that can mount a amphibious/airborne invasion of Europe except on a tiny tiny scale except the US and that I doubt. Are only land threat then is via our Eastern border which I where our LAND defences should be not on a base outside Lisbon or London or La Rochelle etc but in East where the enemy are likely to come from. However losing the domestic basing of land forces and the economic aspect is not acceptable so most are not were they are going to be used so we have to have plenty of extras to compensate. By all means have domestic training facilities and rapid reaction forces located next to airfields / ports for rapid deployment but all else is a waste . Naval assets are where they should be and so is most Air .
Whitestelephant
It is not about little England.
It is about recognising that all that trade by sea and trading nation stuff is well….not to put to fine a point on it… Bollocks.
It is true but so what ? So what if our trade comes by sea. So does everyone elses. We can no more police it by force ( particulary by force v local state objectors) than we can police the arse end of the moon Get over it.
If the day of our decline (militarily) is due then why waste time and money trying?
The money could be better used. In ways that could help the economy.
For example if we stopped trying to build ‘the best (insert here) in the world, Hahahahahahah……..’!!!!
We might be able to afford it and to Build it here.
It is nota choice between little Englander and world power. We are not the power we were and we will not decline into little England.
Further to my previous comments, I’d say that the significant changes that could be made with a pure defence (but not expeditionary) stance is:
– Removal of all light infantry elements of the British Army, to be replaced by a purely reserve force or Gendarmerie.
– Scrapping of all LPDs and LSDs and a halving of the RMs to be a purely small scale raiding force based from T26s and CVFs.
– Significant reduction in logistical force and RFA – no need to support world wide ops.
I would however:
– Keep the CVFs to create CBGs, increase the number of SSNs and MPAs – no nation can invade with control of the seas.
– Up the land defences of the BOTs, with airdefence plus add locally based small attack craft to harry any invasion fleets.
Chuck
Not my numbers a direct lift from a janes article. The point is even after the scaling back of western forces they comfortable out number all of the Jets available to Russia. We may bemoan reductions if defence spending but the forces available to the west are still in a considerably better position than the potiential opposition.
I challange anyone to explain what ‘Globally engaged means?
How we are supposed to need to be extra protected over say the Germans who ship so many manufactured cars overseas or the Japanese that do like wise…
“90% of our imports come by sea, we have global interests to protect and global stability is key to this nations stability and prosperity”
That should read 90% by volume. Close to 35% of world trade by value goes by air.
‘the Germans who ship so many manufactured cars overseas or the Japanese that do like wise’
Not to mention the Chinese who must have a very large interest in keeping the international shipping lanes open, I wonder if they would be mug enough to do the heavy lifting for the Arab states as the West have been?
@DavidNiven
Is that why they are requesting basing options in various African countries?
Could the Chinese navy could then take over anti piracy from the west?
I don’t agree that we should spend less on defence, nor that ending global force projection is an opportunity to make a big cut in defence spending.
I do think though, that we need to properly prioritise our areas of interest. Defence reviews which identify everything, everywhere as being a threat of equal significance will only lead to our finite resources being spread ever thinner. And the idea that each service must always be served up its fair slice of the pie feeds into our inability to prioritise threats and target our resources effectively.
Concentrate on our corner of the NATO area, and we still need new frigates, and to fill the MPA hole, and to retain submarines. We still want fast jets and AWACS for defending our own airspace, as well as for contributing to the Baltic air-defence mission. As it is, the RAF can only sustain about a dozen jets on offensive operations before the burden makes their eyes water; and we’d still reasonably want to have more assets available than just for peacetime QRA.
As a NATO member the armoured division would still be relevant for helping to protect the bloc’s border in the Baltic and Poland. Even after money is spent on the Warrior upgrades and CVRT(ENORMOUS), the tank regiments have plenty of room for investment – anything up to a new generation of tank.
With the armoured division, the attack helicopters need substantial upgrades. The heavy artillery has long had scope for upgrades. There’d still be a need for further infantry units and support units, and SigInt aircraft, and ground scanning radar.
And there remains the same argument for the nuclear deterrent.
The point is, that just in our corner of NATO, there is a reasonable argument for keeping fairly sizeable forces. And much of the expeditionary capability that we do have has been bought and paid for by deferring equipment replacements and upgrades for years.
@as
I presume they are requesting basing rights to protect their investments and to ensure the precious metals and minerals they buy from the Africans to fuel their economic growth flow without any hindrance.
I can see a time when the Chinese will police their own areas of interest and not tolerate too much ‘help’ from the West.
Brian, nor too do I believe we should stop be’in a global playa, and I agree that we need to be more focussed in how we choose to do this in future.
A narrow spectrum great power was the term I used some years ago now.
The arguments for the need to be a global coastguard is very overstated, most countries don’t do that, they rely on individual countries to patrol their own coastline, not create a navy that can cover the entire stretch. They only fill in the gaps when local law enforcement is unable to carry out their duties.
IXION, re port access, I don’t think Putin had a margin for error, and at that point in time, the Ukrainians seriously did not like Russia. It’s way too easy to use one justification or another for a caucus belli and block off the port for massive fees. Seen countries try that with other resources, not just port access. When Indonesian politicians complain that Singapore is a banking center for all their “corrupt politician’s gains”, what they really mean was “so you should give us money.” Or Malaysia and their threats in the past to cut off water. Situations like that are precarious for a country. Pay them off and they’ll keep raising the price.
@Brian Black, a strong argument. Also merit in Repulses comments
Same money but radical shift in focus to make what we do focus on a highly effective contribution
Since the 50s, our percentage of the world’s population has halved, presumably the effects of improved medicine in the 3rd world and contraception in the west. God knows what it is of the world’s population of military age – far lower I would imagine.
The idea we can continue as though this has not happened is mad. As is the idea of getting rid of the deterrent. The deterrent is the last thing we should be rid of.
Apologies if the last comment left the beef out – as our percentage of world population declines, we have also reduced the numbers of both people and effect that our conventional forces can deliver. Our air land and naval forces whilst not the strongest are not at issue as more populous nations do not presently contest them. But history shows we will be threatened.
It makes me wonder whether we need to reintroduce multipliers like tactical WMD.
Anything less than full on CASD with appropriate support would be beyond madness in these uncertain times. Any suggestion that any monetary saving from scrubbing it would find its way to other military kit is equally ridiculous. At the point we justifiably feel safe to abandon CASD is the point we decide we need a military no bigger than Belgium
“Anything less than full on CASD with appropriate support would be beyond madness in these uncertain times.”
The problem with this argument is that a britain that exits the global-playa game cannot justify the need for (or the cost of), SSN’s. SSK’s would make far more sense for a nation that is worried about the north atlantic.
Which is all fine, but how does britain then support an industry that has [both] the capability to build nuclear boats [and] the capability to design them, when you are looking at a single class of three SSBN’s with a 25 year service life?
I freely admit I have dodged that question above in suggesting 9 SSK’s and three SSBN’s. Perhaps we can have a conventionally powered submarine capable of housing a CMC compartment, but if not we need to revisit the question of whether we need an expensive submarine based deterrent if the bulk of britains armed forces won’t be stuck in dusty hell-hole on the other side of the world for year after year**.
** Thus necessitating a deterrent because there’s nothing left in the golf bag at home.
The problem with WMD and CASD is that it is based on the assumption that they will be used. I’m not saying that they are useless but the limitation should be recognised. Would they be used if Argentina (backed by China) invaded the Falklands? Would they be used if Cyprus (backed by Russia) took back the sovereign bases?
Money spent on CASD in my view should be balanced with broader defence needs. One nuclear button does not make the UK safe.
‘but how does britain then support an industry that has [both] the capability to build nuclear boats [and] the capability to design them’
We can’t indefinitely, if we want to continue to build SSN’s and SSBN’s then we have to subsidise the ability by building SSK’s and surface ships which we can then sell to other navies.
Having our bespoke expensive ship and submarine industries are unsustainable with such a small requirement from our armed forces.
@ DN – “We can’t indefinitely, if we want to continue to build SSN’s and SSBN’s then we have to subsidise the ability by building SSK’s and surface ships which we can then sell to other navies.”
It would be interesting to test that.
Does France with its 6x SNN / 4x SSBN / SSK(?) fleet have a more sustainable and cost effective nuclear boat business (design and build) than Britain with its 7x SNN / 4x SSBN and no SSK?
Would our resident naval types like to comment…
@JBT
I don’t think we are a like for like comparison with France. For one they have had constant investment in their nuclear power industry and provide their services world which creates a steady flow of power plant engineers for the nuclear sub industry to tap into.
Just a quick look at the DCNS website shows how nuclear power and nuclear submarines go hand in hand.
http://en.dcnsgroup.com/activities/products/#
Plus their Scorpène class are doing pretty well around the world.
*Cost: $450 million
Building: 2
Planned: 19
Completed: 4
Cancelled: 4
Active: 4
*From wiki, I know :-)
Coupled with some decent’ish number of sales for their Gowind class vessels which must also be helping out, and we must not forget to mention the Russian Mistrals.
Thought the main acceptance for dropping the third section from a platoon was the demonstrable increase in firepower meaning that four fire teams supply much greater effect than six compared to only three decades ago, requiring a smaller and more easily maintained (secure) logistics train?
@chris – I am not saying we stop the decision making process, but I am saying that we do not send people into theatre without basic equipment. several coroners picked up on this and in my opinion this is inexcusable.
I really dont know where the defence budget is going, but it seems to me that we need to modernise the organisational structure of all forces and rationalise logistics by asking large uk logistics companies to help (amazon and tesco’s must be pretty efficient).
If we look at the spectrum of requirements it should be something like this
Nuclear deterrent
Maritime protection
Air Defence
Cyber
Homeland protection
Medical
Special Forces
Expeditionary/ Force protection
I guess the question is how much does each need per year and what is the probability of usage (given we have been in at least one conflict for the past 25 years).
We are widely lauded for the expertise of our special forces, but without a critical mass of highly trained and motivated infantry, where will we get our world beating special forces.
My point is that we can’t just pick and choose everything, the apex needs a critical mass beneath it and this needs to be factored in.
Lastly, I believe our role in NATO should be to re-inforce Europe with mass air assets rather than Tanks which as we have seen in the last few months – require months to get ready. A Typhoon could be in theatre in a matter of hours as could an apache.
This would lead me to the belief that we do not need new heavy armour as it is unlikely to leave our shores and should concentrate on medium armour that is deployable.
@IXION
It is not bollocks that we are a global trading nation with 90% of our imports “by volume” (thanks Mark) coming by sea, nor is it bollocks that we have considerable interests around the globe – whose continued maintenance greatly benefits us as a nation.
By taking a leading and proactive role in maintaining global stability as Americas lieutenant, we find ourselves well placed to influence Washington and other Allies in order to protect those interests.
This is why the government prioritises an expeditionary military over a self-defence/isolationist force.
You argue that just because the day will inevitably come where we are no longer a military power we should simply stop being one, cut the defence budget and direct the money toward helping the economy. I completely disagree and find it difficult to understand your reasoning.
As humans we are destined to eventually die. Does that mean we should simply stop living now? Furthermore, any cuts to the defence budget would either drive down the deficit or go into the NHS. You really think it would be spent on the economy? Don’t be naive. Besides, defence spending well known to be beneficial for the economy anyway.
Your beliefs would sprint us towards Little England and we would no longer be the middle ranking great power we are today – which itself is a far cry from what we were at our apex or even 50 years ago.
Following the Spanish, Dutch or Italians to global irrelevance is beneath us. Where was Italy during talks with Iran for example? Is that the type of nation we wish to become?
As I said before, very few nations find itself as well placed or as capable as Britain to take a leading role in the international community. We are the 5th largest economy. A UNSC member. A nuclear power. One of 5 military powers. MI5, SIS and GCHQ. Almost unparalleled levels of soft power. London is a global economic command center. A highly developed nation. A rich nation. A prestigious nation. A respected nation. A nation with leading scientists and innovators. The list goes on.
Many nations would love to have such an international portfolio, and wouldn’t be so quick to throw it away.
pacman27,
I would suggest that we need to make our light armour capable of reaching the lower levels of medium and our heavy armour adaptable enough to cover the higher levels of medium, but I don’t think that scrapping both for some kind of universally compromised medium that is neither deployable nor survivable is a good idea.
Whiteelephant
Provided we keep those sea lanes to Europe, norway and america open we should be fine
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/About-the-Royal-Navy/~/media/Files/Navy-PDFs/About-the-Royal-Navy/RN%20and%20Global%20Trade%20Security.pdf
@Mark
Indeed, keeping those SLOC open are vital, especially the Persian Gulf. Wasn’t it only a few years ago that Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz? Didn’t the US, UK and France respond by deploying more assets to the region?
Aren’t the Americans eager to see French and future British carriers plug ever increasing gaps in Americas overstretched navy?
As that link you posted says:
“The Royal Navy leads partners across
the globe to protect the maritime
environment and acts to suppress all
overt and malign influences which would
destabilise the maritime environment.”
We are only able to achieve this by maintaining our high-end capabilities with enough scale to remain credible (i.e Type 45, Type 26 + 2087, Astute, future QE-class + F-35 and a world class RFA). Such assets put us at the top of the decision making process where we can work alongside the Americans with smaller NATO members (if necessary) contributing in a junior way.
Why do we not as the Americans for aid money that we could use to support them. Carriers need extra type 45 for example. Get the Americans to fund them. We also need to get more out of NATO. Do we charge for allowing other air forces use our low fly roots. There are thing we are good at that we could charge for. Every little helps and all that.
@The Other Chris
Whenever the argument is used that todays weapon systems are so much better than what went before, we can afford to reduce numbers you just know its an excuse for saving money. Doesn’t matter what it is tank, ship, aircraft or infantry section. They conveniently forget to mention that the potential opponents have also improved. Not to mention that they also assume that what went before was adequate in the first place.
Whitestelephant
The gulf has minimal relevance to UK trade it’s much more important to South korea, Japan and China than us. We’re in the process of making peace with Iran following the talks in Switzerland and that should further change our strategic positioning in the region.
If america is struggling with carriers then to de honest that is Americas problem not ours. Outside of the UK and South Atlantic the UK should not really be maintaining enduring presence in any other region. Yearly visits or the occasional exercise when and if assets are available.
Too simple to aim section reductions at cost saving, it’s not a cost measure. Too many, security, logistics, order of command and efficiencies in avoiding diminishing returns in firepower.
What is a cost saving is then not combining those third sections from two platoons into a third platoon.
On the topic of sphere’s of influence, not outrageous an aim to want to control our regions and the lanes in between on top of “sovereign defence”.
@Mark
The Gulf remains important to both ourselves and the US US. Hence the expansion of the US support facility and the building of our own site.
It is a logical base to exert influence in the whole region not just the Gulf.
Apas
If we continue to get a smaller defence budget do we continue to maintain a permanent presence in the region at the expense of say the south altantic patrol ship or a ship in UK waters or an additional requirement in the Atlantic . There are extremely wealthly states in the gulf who spend an awful lot of money on equipment who perhaps should be doing more of the policing as perhaps should the likes of Japan, we have to accept a reduced global footprint at the expense of high end equipment and the navy and airforce have a lot of assets committeed to the region so a reduced presence could reduce the overstretch.
Whitest elephant
I called bollocks and I meant it.
Please explain why the Germans dont have a big navy they shift a lot more stuff out than we do. (Also they own a lot of the worlds ships). Poor cripled humiliated Germany. On your reasoning they should have fleets of fleets.
So the Iti’s got no say in talks with IRAN. Who gives a fuck, do the Italians? I wasn’t even aware we were part of the talks…. Anyone else? Just how has the average Italian or the Italian defence capacity suffered by this humiliation of not being involved…..? I bet the Dutch the Swedish and the Japanese all got together in a corner and sniggered about the Italians not being there.. Oh wait a minute they were’nt there either..
We do not ‘keep sea lanes open’ these are international routes protected by treaty and by the naked self interrest of the users.
‘Middle ranking world power’…. Please explain it to me with diagrams what in the name of Noel Edmunds and all his little bearded Deamons is a ‘Middle ranking World power’?
I hate to break it to you but the days of ‘Rule Britannia’ were over when the Prince of Wales went down and we lost Singapore. The British Empire is way deader than disco.
I know the suites full of bugger all will waste any money saved. But they might just waste it somwhere it will do some good. Not spending it on aircraft carriers that run out at 10000 tons per aircraft carried might be a start….
Oh by the way
Cuts in defence budget going to drive down the deficit or into NHS…. Sounds like the right place for any spare cash right now…
APATS
It is some one elses turn to keep the Gulf open. I know HOW ABOUT THE GULF STATES? The ones with all the cash and tanks and guns we sold them…..
“The gulf has minimal relevance to UK trade”
The Gulf is extremely important to the UK. More than 25% of UK port traffic (in terms of tonnage) is in the form of Liquid Gas and Crude Oil. That is not “minimal relevance”.
Oil and gas is the life blood of our economy, there is continual traffic of LNG carriers and Crude Oil tankers between the various exporting nations directly to the UK. Any disruption to that would have dire consequences for our economy.
As UK oil and gas production declines and our demand grows, the Gulf will become more and more relevant to us.
It amazes me how out of touch you are.
Besides the above, Royal Dutch Shell (Holland + UK) and BP (UK) are the 4th and 6th largest companies in the world (in terms of revenue). Needless to say they are colossal players in the Oil and Gas industry. Both are heavily invested in the Gulf, as well as other giants in the UK .
For the British Government and the City of London, I imagine keeping the balance of power in the Middle East is of huge concern. We have a lot at stake, more than you are obviously aware of.
I completely disagree South Korea, Japan and China have more interests in the Middle East than we do. Besides, as is clearly evident, we the Americans and the French are by far the best placed and most capable to maintain a permanent presence in the Gulf.
“If america is struggling with carriers then to de honest that is Americas problem not ours.”
If that is your attitude, then perhaps the Americans shouldn’t have given us the help they did in 1982. Or we shouldn’t have supported the french with C-17s and Sentinel during Mali. Our allies also should have refused to send maritime patrol aircraft last year to Scotland when we needed them.
With that attitude, NATO is irrelevant.
“Outside of the UK and South Atlantic the UK should not really be maintaining enduring presence in any other region. Yearly visits or the occasional exercise when and if assets are available.”
Bonkers. Keeping the Royal Navy to UK waters and the South Atlantic would leave the bulk of the doing very little. Our overseas interests would be dependent on America to maintain good order, and we would loose our influence and position at the top of the decision making process – which is key.
@IXION “Please explain why the Germans…..”
What about the Dutch, Rotterdam is the largest port in Europe and the 6th largest world wide.
The rest of NATO need to start pulling there weight on international operations.
Sorry the NHS is a broken and a red herring or red rag to a bull depending on who you speak. You can put as much money in as you like for little effect. Broken giant sponge.
WE
Please stop.
BP dropped the British from its name years ago, both it and Shell are Multinationals (clue there in the title).
Just how does the British govt ‘ keep the balance of power in the middle east’?
You are making wild assertions about Britain’s power in the world without backing up in any factual way how we achieve all this. It may indeed ‘be in our interests’ but we lack any practical means of achieving it.
Whiteestelephant
The link below gives UK imports/exports for UK oil and gas 12% of gas comes from Qatar and 4% of our oil from Saudi. The single biggest contribution to UK oil and gas is norway closely followed in the oil world by Africa. Shale gas from America will I guess further change the dynamic.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=uk
The middle East is a important global supply route for oil and gas but a signifcant portion of that heads East not west.
Here’s the equivalent for Japan http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ja 81% of oil imports from the Mid East
Here’s one for South korea http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=KS 86% of oil imports from the gulf
You contribute what assets you have when they are available to support a coalition you do not pocure equipment simply to fill gaps in other countries orbat. Nato is an alliance in the North Atlantic area of operation and that is very different from operating in the gulf or elsewhere.
No it’s not bonkers and it’s not about keeping the RN anywhere. A repeat of HMS daring in its round the world cruise of last year or the cougar series is perfectly acceptable way of contributing to UK global capability.
@IXION
For obvious historical reasons, the Germans are not too enthusiastic about taking an assertive military role. They have (as the world has in general) been quite happy for the Americans to play world policeman, with lieutenant Britain and a somewhat unpredictable France
It suits the Germans to play a junior role, contributing when it can to counter-piracy missions etc.
If you think its bollocks we continue to play our part in this world, then fine. But it is a very poor attitude. If more countries were willing to stand up to their share of the burden it would be a better place.
BP and Royal Dutch are still headquartered/have headquarters in the UK, still heavily invested in by the City, British government and others.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/04/decc-energy-statistics,-march-2013
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=UK
@Mark/Ixion
The presence of Uk/US forces in theGulf is multi faceted, welcomed and indeed supported by the Gulf states. Bahrain is paying lock stock and barrel for our new accommodation and support facilities in Manama. They help support the US 5th Fleet.
Ops in the Gulf are split between TF numbered ops (US 5th fleet with UK and sometimes French contributions) and CTF ops which are multi national coalition operations. We have only just managed to get the Saudis to stepup and lead one of theCTF ops and even then we had to back fill the staff with UK/US Officers.
To suggest that the Midle Eastern states could take over or even the lead on these sort of ops simply because they have bought some shiny toys is unfortunately pie in the sky. Tney do not train or exercise anywhere near enough at unit level never mind be able to run an unsupported TG level op.
Our ME presence offers the MCMVs the opportunity to exercise in some of the most difficult water conditions in the world, as well as conduct peacetime route survey which would be vital if it went hot. They are also handily forward positioned to be bale to operate throughout the area. That is withjout the huge benfit we get from working alongside TF52 (US MCMV command) and contributing to tacdev including greater us of UUV and airborne MCM. It is perhaps telling that it is the permanently deployed UK cdrthat assumes comand of the adapatle UK/US MCM force when required.
The T45 and T23 on K1 and K2 duties conduct multiple mision taskings but area available to as as an MCMV protection unit and are also gaining invaluable experience operating as integrated components of Carrier Battle Groups.
So inshort the Gulf presence is multi faceted. Subsidised, as important politicallyas militarily, offers fantastic training opportunities and ensures we have forwarded deployed assets in an area of huge importance (E of Suez).
Apas
I have no doubt at all that Mid East countries have little ability to use equipment they buy. I know in the air domain they have bought stuff and simply parked it in the desert with little or no interest in using it they were just buying influence. That’s why I phrased it the way I did. They should be made to start delivering a capability, we cannot hold there hands forever.
I don’t doubt the UK gets training benefits and it useful for operating in the wider region but if defence is asked for a further reduction or indeed no increase in funds and our equipment is getting more expensive something will have to give. While I would be reducing our nuclear ambitions before our conventional ones no one else seems to like that idea.
@Mark
12% and 4% is a considerable amount if you consider what effect it would have on our economy if disrupted. However as I pointed out, its not just the amount of liquid gas and crude oil we import, but our financial interests in the oil and gas industries.
Above all, its about playing our part in the world. A role we are certainly able to afford and undertake. The reality is that while a few are willing to do their fair share, most are not. So I cannot agree with you or IXION that we should do less too.
@IXION
Please don’t force words into my mouth. I never said the British government keeps the balance of power in the Gulf did I?
What I said was; “For the British Government and the City of London, I imagine keeping the balance of power in the Middle East is of huge concern. We have a lot at stake” – with regards to oil and gas imports as well as significant financial interests.
If you refer to my previous posts, I make it clear enough that we achieve the above by doing our part in maintaining global stability and good order alongside the Americans and French. (not alone!)
Maintaining a permanent presence in the Gulf alongside them, with the capacity to deploy high-end capabilities in response to a crisis gives us a great deal of influence in the decision making process. Regional partners such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman also welcome our presence and influence. Collective effort.
Ultimately we need to keep doing our part and carry our fair share of the security burden. Simply because Germany doesn’t or the rest of NATO are quite happy doing little or playing a junior role, it doesn’t mean we should follow them. Your attitude that we should is irresponsible and foolish.
@Mark
We may not be able to hold their hands for ever but we do need to encourage and help train and integrate them. The fact that they do subsidise our presence, there are big political elements and the training is superb is all the more reason for it to be way down the list of any cuts.
Unfortunately it is “real politik” that we should look to guard the energy supplies that we need to exist, and to keep an eye on, and thwart if necessary the geopolitical games of Mr Putin.
However I am not a fan of the “trendy lefty meets Neo-Con” concept of operations which sees you “bombing a country back into the stone age” and then spending blood and treasure building them back up into a “reliable client state” – I just don’t think it works.
I am for a strong conventional deterrent force which can punish action against the UK or the UK’s interests. This may be based on CV/F35 (and I am NO FAN of the F35) or on SSN / TacTom or on FFG / DDG with TacTom. This would also include Tranche 3 Typhoon with Storm Shadow I suppose. Boots on the ground not a big deal in this scenario, but small numbers including SF might be. Other than that expeditionary capabilities might be based on large scale civilian evacuation, or provision of a small well rounded and well equipped force to NATO, or coalition operations.
However when it comes down to it, nation destroying, not nation building would be the main role for the armed forces, but that requires a class of politician that we apparently no longer posses. Ones that can play “statesman” with some authority, and no worry about sound bite retribution on the home front. Most citizens do not understand nor care about strategic geo-politics, unfortunately that does not mean that the don’t need their government to play the game on their behalf. So defence will never win votes, get over it move on and play the game on the countries behalf, and pay the SUN’s “editorials” the exact amount of attention they are worth……
@ Mark
‘ I know in the air domain they have bought stuff and simply parked it in the desert with little or no interest in using it they were just buying influence. They should be made to start delivering a capability, we cannot hold there hands forever. ‘
I know the point was more state level assistance, however it’s not even just about equipment but on many levels too many of them are dependant on foriegn companies to a disproportional amount.
I think a certain defence company would be unhappy about them doing it all on their own ;)
They did try once on a certain a/c type to big fanfare. Wasn’t quite how it was presented mind…
Whitestelephant
I think it pales into insignificance when you look around the world to countries who really depend on Mid East oil and gas infact we’re not even in the top 10 importers of world oil which puts us behind the likes of India and Taiwan. Of your concerned for big UK oil companies and there investments I’d be a looking more at what’s going on in Russia, Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico as far a bp goes anyway.
Apas. We may see those decisions needing to be made in a few months I’m glad I’m not making them. On a side note I also see the navy’s chasing “icebergs” again.
Topman gd point certain said company would be crying there lamps out.
We are a net importer of energy, yet we are an island with bountiful resources compared to many nations in water and renewable energy resources not to mention the large amounts of coal still under our feet.
Maybe we should be investing a lot more in tidal (plentiful & predictable) amongst other renewable technologies and clean coal technology (which would be of monetary value to a number of developing countries) rather than ring fencing a dying ship building industry (where are the large commercial spin off to technologies in Astute?) as a strategic asset over success stories such as our space and pharmaceutical industries to name just two.
As an example
‘The MeyGen project, owned by AIM-listed tidal power company Atlantis Resources (“Atlantis”), has successfully led a funding syndicate to raise approximately £50 million which will be used to finance the initial stage of the wider MeyGen project’
‘When fully completed, the MeyGen project will have the potential to provide clean, sustainable, predictable power for 175,000 homes in Scotland’
http://www.meygen.com/2014/08/uk-leads-marine-energy-revolution-as-worlds-largest-tidal-stream-project-agrees-investment-to-begin-construction-in-scotland/
£50 million is what they were after to start phase 1, yet the MOD pissed away nearly £200 million to study whether we could convert the carrier to cats and traps.
We should be weaning of the ME as fast as we can and if defence took a hit to do so I would welcome it. The MOD have wasted enough money over the years for no benefit to either the armed forces or the country.
@David Niven
Well considering most of the tech on Astute is pretty classified, I would not expect many. In fact many military projects have little commercial spin offs. If they do it is nice but that is not what they are for.
People need to stop thinking of the ME as the Gulf only and look at a map. Then look at where we import items from and the best place to be in order to act if required. Not to mention the massive benefits we gain from training in the AOR both in terms of who we work with and conditions as well as the political element of aiding stability in the region. Unstable Muslim countries are pretty bad I think we can all agree.
@Mark
The RN presence in the Gulf will definitely survive SDSR 2015. Too much political capital been expended and we get too much out of it. The shiny new base the Bahrainis are buying us opens later this year.
An “iceberg” ok.
Apas
It will buff out http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025839/Royal-Navy-nuclear-submarine-suffers-500-000-damage-hitting-floating-ice-tracking-Russian-vessels.html
WE
It is time we told the gulf states to stand up for themselves.
Saudis built AK.
Quataris built ISIS
These are our ‘allies’
Thocratic corrupt absolute monarchs.
Their forces are not up to confronting ISIS they say. But they can bomb Yeman. And back AK affiliates in Syria.
So they can keep the gulf clear for shipping if they can’t then it should be a piority for them to get to know how.
I repeat most pepple will happily sell us oil, the Iranians and ISIS will. So why support the Saudis?
Anyway, leaving aside the Imperial delusions how does any of our millitary kit help this?
Still not explained why we are more ‘globally engaged’ than Germany or Italy, or for that matter Canada or Australia. Or precisely how Fat we get on being globaly engaged. Or for that matter how our forces supoosidly help.
In the comming Sunni Shia war we really need to stay the hell out.
@APATS
‘Then look at where we import items from and the best place to be in order to act if required.’
we are in Bahrain to keep the straits of Hormuz open for one commodity energy. If we wanted to be in a place that would allow us to act to protect all aspects of trade shipping and influence the area then we would be in Djibouti with the French.
A lot of countries have an interest in keeping shipping lanes open not just us, which is why the Chinese are looking for basing rights on the east coast of Africa.
I keep saying this but it still seems to pass some people by. Any threat to the worldwide supply and delivery of oil, minerals, chemicals, raw materials, foodstuffs, other commodities and consumer products will reduce the overall availability and increase the price of these items and their derivatives accordingly. This will affect the economy and living standards of the UK as well as everyone else, even if it enjoys alternative sources which will be subject to higher demand from elsewhere. National interest and the competition for ever reducing resources does not stop at the English Channel.
@ David Niven
Em wrong, we are in Bahrain as it is the correct side of Suez. We have huge host nation support. The training opportunities are superb, they are building us a mew complex for free. We are co located with 5th fleet and indeed the HQ for all ops in the AOR inside and outside the Gulf. It sends a Political message as well. We are even putting ships on slips for maintenance now.
Why would we want to relocate to Djibouti, you are probably not aware that the French Navy are looking to move into Abu Dhabi. Djibouti has a couple of berths and a couple of army bases. Not good enough and
Not really better located. It is a fuel stop.
@IXION
“It is time we told the gulf states to stand up for themselves.”
Yes, it would be nice if they did step up to the task, but as APATS said, that is unlikely.
“most pepple will happily sell us oil, the Iranians and ISIS will. So why support the Saudis?”
Besides the fact they are the worst thing since Hitler, are you really advocating we buy oil from ISIS? I would put this down to intentional trolling, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
“Anyway, leaving aside the Imperial delusions how does any of our millitary kit help this?”
Imperial delusions? Please leave aside the pointless rhetoric. What about solid realities? The majority of Gulf states want us there, the Americans want us there and guess what, we are there, pulling our weight.
We are heavily engaged in the region, providing high-end capabilities, especially with regards to MCM and the ability to deploy highly capable assets (Type 45 etc) with enough quantity to remain a credible partner to the US, France and our regional partners.
“Still not explained why we are more ‘globally engaged’ than Germany or Italy”
There is little more to explain other than they are quite happy to sit back and play a junior role. Both could and should do a lot more to protect Western interests. However I repeat, just because they decide to be less globally engaged, doesn’t mean we should too.
@Mark
Your argument can be summed up as thus; “because we don’t import as much oil from the Gulf as other countries, our national interest in the region is therefore insignificant and we shouldn’t be there”.
I find that reasoning to be infuriatingly flawed. Our national interests are our own and shouldn’t be measured against another nations. Besides importing modest amounts of liquid gas and oil from the Gulf, we also have considerable financial interests in the regions oil and gas industry. For Britain, as a nation, we have decided those interests are worth protecting by supporting our major allies and partners in the Gulf. We do that military, politically and economically.
Just because another nation may import more oil from the Gulf than us and maintains no military presence in the region doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.
@APATS
‘Em wrong, we are in Bahrain as it is the correct side of Suez.’
There’s plenty of places that are the correct side of the Suez before you get to Bahrain, Jordan, West coast of Saudi Arabia, Djibouti and Oman are all western friendly’ish. Bahrain just happens to be the right side of the Straits as well to keep our energy interests safe.
@WE
‘Just because another nation may import more oil from the Gulf than us and maintains no military presence in the region doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.’
Might be interesting to think about that, knowing that there are many countries much more depend on the gulf, how do they all square that risk with little to mitegate it?
WE
Well if Germany and others take a back seat why shouldn’t we?
Why do they get to freeload off of us?
Intrinsically in you response is an admission they are as globally as we are sans fleets in their case.
‘Worst thing since Hitter’. As opposed to the democracy suppresing woman murdering dissident flogging bunch of liberals who created and funded AK?
Sorry but no one on this site or elswhere has ever explained what Globally engaged means except as a peace of verbage to make a self licking lollipop ‘we are globally engaged’ because we have our navy stationed arround the world and we have our navy stationed arround the world because we are globally engaged’…
What exactly do we get out of being a ‘credible partner’ to be US gets us…
I notice you havent mention the poor humiliated Italians…
@David Niven
Bahrain just happens to have all the advantages I listed as well but just ignore them. Also ignore the French looking tommove into Abu Dhabi and repeat your single point :)
WE
As we’re not in the worlds top 15 energy importers and only 6th in total imports behind the likes of Japan, China, France and Germany (Germany being the country we import most from) I assume they’re all making a larger contributions of military assets to ensuring the free flow of world goods than we are, as there also all wealthier than we are. Maybe said countries would wish to finance our efforts as a thank you.
It’s not that we shouldn’t be involved but at a level appropriate to what we get out of it. That sort of sums up my position on world trade protection.
@IXION
“the poor humiliated Italians”
Hardly. They are just not as relevant on the world stage as say China, the US, UK, France, Germany, Japan or Russia – who are most often considered to be the worlds leading nations.
But don’t worry, it is inevitably our future. You will have your Little England, eventually.
‘Bahrain just happens to have all the advantages I listed as well but just ignore them’
The Americans are there for their own raesons and if it runs paralelel with ours then fine, same for the French. We are talking about our reasons no one else’s and the biggest single reason we are there is to protect energy resources.
Some of reason the good people of Bahrain are paying for our stay may also have something to do with the Shia majority they have and their relationship with Iran, there’s nothing like the possibility of a few western casualties to deter an enemy is there.
@Mark
“It’s not that we shouldn’t be involved but at a level appropriate to what we get out of it. That sort of sums up my position on world trade protection.”
Whats to say that the level we currently engage at isn’t already the appropriate level? Tbh, considering we are the worth 5th largest economy and the world 6th largest trading nation we probably should do more to ensure global stability and good order is maintained.
Just because a larger economic power like Germany does less to maintain global stability (via military means), doesn’t mean we should too. It probably means they are not doing enough.
@David Niven
No David you list one reason only. I list multiple. I acknowledged the Political reasons for our presence but the main reason is the facilities and the co location with US 5th Fleet and CMF HQs.
You can clear a channel from either end.
@APATS
I know I only list one as I said ‘the biggest single reason we are there is to protect energy resources.’
Training, facilities and co location etc are a by product of that requirement.
@WE
‘Just because a larger economic power like Germany does less to maintain global stability (via military means), doesn’t mean we should too. It probably means they are not doing enough.’
I wonder if the germans mind or worry? Is SO lurking to give their perspective?
As the local totty in the Middle East is mostly unavailable, I’d suggest that the main reason for our presence there is energy security, although the diplo-political reasons tend to be about 10 years out of date.
@David Niven
Only they are not are they? You can clear the Straits from either side but how many places give you co location with US 5th Fleet, CMF, so all ops in the AOR with the ability to walk over and discuss face to face. Oportunity for K1 and K2 to conduct CBG integrated ops. MCMs to exercise in some of the worlds most difficult water conditions. Ability to work on warships up to T45 size out of the water if required. Send a message politicaly and get a base built for you.
We only import 5% of oil and under 20% of LPG from inside Hormuz. The cry of it is all about “oil” is slightly dated today.
Kipion is designed to aid the safe flow of trade and oil whilst promoting peace and stability.
The very last word is becoming more and more important.
@RT
Stacks of expat and US totty knocking about.
WE
lets assume for the purposes of argument. That we do ‘matter’ more than the Italians.
You have not explained what we get out of ‘mattering’ in cash terms.
I am not a little Englander… I want us to have a big vibrant international economy.
I just don’t get what you WASAWPYK ers think we are up to. Do you realy think Putin or the Ayatollahs give flying fuck about what Britian thinks, they talk to the Engine driver (America) not the oily rag. Seriously do you think even th. ISIS say to themselves “we want to do X but we wont coz it will piss of the Brits”????
IXION, I don’t think the ISIS cares if they piss off everybody.
@APATs ‘whilst promoting peace and stability.’
That’s working well then
That said I am ok with a base there for the time being whilst defence spend remains at current levels but from a pure defence perspective I don’t think it ranks as high as Europe, Med / North Africa or South Atlantic if thinks had to be cut.
‘You have not explained what we get out of ‘mattering’ in cash terms. ‘
Although there are many shades of grey, mattering can give us enough influence to help defence sales. Typhoon is a good example. Since we are on the topic of the ME, Saudi and Oman are two good examples. The UK drove those sales, to use your other countries example, Italy, they wouldn’t have had the influence to get in the front door.
@Mick P
We still have some peace and stability in countries we are involved in, just.
In terms of defence priorities, we do not have anything to cut in terms of the Med/N Africa, the Italians, French and Spanish carry the load there in conjunction with US 6th Fleet. Both the Greeks and Turks showed during Libya a wilingnesd to get involved, so are we required? Possibly to provide some specialist capability if required. However we can provide that from the UK, the same as Europe, we are in Europe.
South Atlantic, you honour the threat but there is not onejust now.
It is precisely because our NATO allies have assets in the Med that allows usto operate E of Suez.
APATS,
there are, but it’s hardly exciting to shag a European or a yank in the Middle East. Warfare is far more fun.
I had a thing for a Lebanese girl once, but it was in London. Sex on wheels, she was***, but got all coy when we went to meet her mother (predictable).
Her mother still sends Christmas cards to me, the daughter is on her third marriage and seems to have made divorce lawyers in London rich. Glad I avoided that.
*** The most astonishingly beautiful eyes, and muscle control down below that could squeeze the life out of you.
@IXION
We certainly do matter more than the Italians. At least where it counts.
What do we get out of it? Influence in Washington and in the decision making process where British Interests are also at stake. By contributing alongside the Americans, rather than in a very minor capacity like most of NATO, we play our part and commit to our own fair share of maintaining global security. In cash terms, this collective effort gives us an economy with all the resources and freedom it needs to grow, trade and become that “big vibrant international economy” you want.
Of course we could retreat to our island and let the Americans do everything for us like most Western nations. The end result would likely be the same, but is it really honorable to do that?
Personally, I think an independent sovereign nation, like Britain, with the the capability and means to contribute to global stability, should embrace it, not retreat and ride off the backs of the Americans.
You can say you’re not a Little Englander until you are blue in the face. Your attitude strongly suggests otherwise.
I don’t care if Putin doesn’t give a sh1te what Britain thinks. And ISIS are hardly planning their actions in order not to piss of America either. Anyway, I fail to see the relevance of you blabbering on about this, unless it is a further attempt to troll, like when you said we should buy oil off ISIS rather than Saudi Arabia.
APATS already established the Gulf states want us there. It is well known the Americans want us there, and are eager to see our future aircraft carriers plug gaps in their overstretched navy – such the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean.
If we were the completely irrelevant, hapless little nation you want us to be, then the above wouldn’t be true.
I have committed too much time to this thread, and all you do is retort with trolling and pointless rhetoric. So I retire, leaving you to your irrational thoughts and desires of how Britain is irrelevant.
Cheers
WE
Sorry your going I was looking forward to replying…
Something along the lin. Off
So we will be irrelevent and happless as Australia Canada Japan Germany etc.
I made ref to ISIS to make a point that you say WASAWPYK. I say WBBYK. And am cool with that. And I dont see (and beyond vague references to holding Americas coat, and mattering to them), that you have made any real point to it.
As someone remarked up thread this keeping the peace in the middle east things going well.
@APATs, just indeed
I am not convinced that we won’t find a shift in our need to move our priorities closer to home though, eg Med. Any cut in existing force levels will mean hard choices without doubt
@Mick p
Why would we need to move our priorities into the Med? You have US 6th Fleet, the Spanish, half the French, the Italians, the Greeks, the Turks. It is a NATO lake.
@APATS
‘The cry of it is all about “oil” is slightly dated today.’
And yet energy is still the main reason we are there.
‘under 20% of LPG from inside Hormuz’
LNG imports accounted for 26.6 per cent of total imports, 22.5 TWh in 2014 only second to the Langeled Pipeline which pumped 64.8 TWh of gas. In the same year there was a 1.5 per cent increase in
gas used for electricity generation which was a reflection of the decrease in coal generation and lower wholesale gas prices.
And what political message are we sending and to whom?
@David Niven
Could you link to the 2014 figures then as in 2013 we imported 12% of our imported gas from Qatar. Energy is just one reason we are there and if it is as important as you believe then it is another good reason why we should and will be staying there.
We send not only a Political message to those that would seek to de stabilise the region via government or non governmental forces as well as a moderating influence on those countries we work with.
@APATs agreed at present but things change. Greece falls apart, the U.S. pushes East, Turkey gets embroiled in Syria. ….
I said it as an eg, perhaps a better one is GUIK or North Atlantic?
The way I see it is the Gulf is fine now but could easily become a military luxury in the medium term if Russia continues to flex or China starts mooching around the Atlantic, as examples
@APATS
‘Imports from Norway fell in 2009 and 2011 as LNG sources became much more important. LNG imports from Qatar peaked at 40% of all imports in 2011 before falling back to 27% in 2012’
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04046.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415993/gas.pdf
‘is another good reason why we should and will be staying there.’
Not really, it’s more of a reason we should be investing in energy security and leaving. If we want to do something in the area we will have the CBG, after all is’nt that what they are they for, power projection. It will be better for the country as a whole to spend money on energy security than having a forward presence in Bahrain.
‘We send not only a Political message to those that would seek to de stabilise the region via government or non governmental forces as well as a moderating influence on those countries we work with.’
In layman’s terms we are there to deter the Iranians and give a bit of back up to the ruling minorities.
@David Niven
Plenty of 2013 figures available.
We imported 12% from Qatar in 2013. The forward presence in Bahrain had so many benefits that I am really pretty bored listing for you. Fortunately those that make the decisions understand.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10629598/UKs-dependence-on-gas-imports-to-blame-for-high-prices-not-Centrica.html
@David Niven
Of course you are talking about imports not percentages of used gas. So given UK production Qatari LPG in 2013 was about 17% of imports but only just under 12% of usage.
@The Other Chris
“Too simple to aim section reductions at cost saving, it’s not a cost measure. Too many, security, logistics, order of command and efficiencies in avoiding diminishing returns in firepower.”
If I understand you correctly you are saying that a three section platoon has too much firepower, is difficult to command and imposes too great a logistic burden! (Not sure about the security bit) So that switching to a two section platoon is operationally more effective. If this was the case I would have no problem with it,but I will take a lot of convincing that is the case and its not simply a cost saving exercise.
March 2015 Energy Trends Report
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415976/ET_Mar_15.PDF
Enjoy!
Oh, and unconventional gas from the good ole USA
Just sayin
For all the benefits of forward presence in the ME, ask what the cost is. Then you can do a cost benefit analysis
I think there is much less of an imperative to stay personally and I think we are thinking too much of the short term, but that always seems to be our curse doesn’t it
Just to point out, oil is a global commodity, if the supply is constricted in one area, the price of it goes up globally, not just locally.
That being said, I suspect things like Iran shutting of the gas is more due to racial and religious animosity than Iran’s desire to conquer the Middle East, so maybe a reduction of “white man” presence might lessen the tensions in the area? Or they could end up taking it out on Israel.
@TD
So we used less gas in 2014 but imports from Qatar rose. With contracts running through until 2018. A UK withdrawal from the ME is about as realistic as that US Pacific pivot we keep reading about.
Or we could just twat the fuckers, hard.
Complete western takeover of the entire Gulf. They haven’t the military or intellect to stop it. The Chinese couldn’t intervene less so the Russians.
@APATS
In 2013 92.7% of our LNG imports came from Qatar, which equates to 18% of all imports and just over 11% of all gas consumed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/natural-gas-chapter-4-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes
How long do you think we would run in the UK with a disruption to our supply?
UK to import more gas from Qatar
http://www.gulf-times.com/eco.-bus.%20news/256/details/432339/uk-to-import-more-gas-from-qatar
‘Fortunately those that make the decisions understand’
The Telegraph!? say’s it all really.
If you want to make out that’s what I said, up to you.
@ David Niven
I think you are getting confused. You basically come up with figures that agree with mine then talk about the Telegraph.
I was talking about those making decision on the military understanding the importance and advantages offered by a presence in Bahrain.
@APATS
I’m not confused at all
‘92.7% of our LNG imports came from Qatar’
You do recognise the significance of that number, coupled with the link from the Gulf times?
The military understanding is energy security, plain and simple.
@David Niven
I am suprised it is not 100%. The figure 92.7% of a specific product, import only is useless. A better figure would surely ge the% of our total use.
No offence but trying to tell me what the military understanding is amuses me. I have sat intermable briefs in theater within the last couple of months.
Even the Kipion mission statement acknowledges energy security as PART of the mission. Anyway I can only try and infirm for so long. Sleep beckons.
@RT …”just twat the fuckers hard”…a refreshingly straightforward and direct contribution, which has quite cheered me up…certainly better than waiting for @IXION’s Sunni/Shia Civil War to be won by one lot or the other…who will certainly hate us, want to kill us, and set about doing so with great enthusiasm…but will by then be doing so from a ramshackle Caliphate having some sort of dominion from the Pillars of Hercules in the West to the Hindu Kush in the East, and from the shores of the Indian Ocean in the South to somewhere in the region of the Iron Gates in the North. With a population of hundreds of millions of heavily armed angry young men, all perhaps having a decade of experience of remorselessly sadistic and brutal warfare, as well as most of the readily available oil…which we might otherwise be using to keep our remaining armed forces operational. :-(
Can’t help feeling that it might on balance be better to keep the War there for as long as possible…as we are mostly doing at the moment. But leaving things well alone until it is a life and death struggle between the Enlightenment values we more or less treasure and something rather different coming at us mob-handed from the South and East…and a fair few of our own inner city ghettos to boot…would at least be morally straightforward. :-)
But at least we can stuff a bit more gold into the gaping maw of the NHS, where it will no doubt do as much good as all the previous countless billions upon billions have…keeping us all alive, drooling and doubly incontinent, lying witlessly in our shit-filled hospital cots until we are 110…
GNB
Relevant post in The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21647671-country-running-down-its-armed-forces-and-its-diplomatic-resources-despair
There’s always oil down south if we need it…
http://www.theguardian.com/business/marketforceslive/2015/apr/02/premier-falkland-oi-gas-and-rockhopper-announce-oil-discovery
Much easier supply line to defend if needed.
Overall, I don’t think this is the time to get light hearted and withdrawal east of the Suez again. The reality is that Africa, the Middle East and Russia all border Europe and whilst they are not the UK’s sole responsibility the UK cannot wash its hands and hope all be OK. Also we have a duty to the FIs and other BOTs, and also a moral responsibility to assist Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and others!) who helped saved our are in two world wars.
However, this does not mean we need to be a super power, what it means is that we need to be smart (and realistic) and provide a broad spectrum of support, whilst having a core “do not mess with” defence capability.
The type of capabilities / approaches are:
– Back the least worst regimes with training and military kit. I know its not very PC in the modern world, but is more effective that thousands of boots-on-the-ground.
– Technology, training and intelligence sharing with our Commonwealth cousins.
– Have dual purpose (for defence and offense) assets that can be deployed globally:
> SSNs
> Long range UAVs (bombers?)
> Satellites
> Carrier Battle Group (yes I said it)
> Globally deployable special force raid capability
I do not have have a problem with MCM deployments to the Gulf for example, but this to me falls into the training opportunity category, and we should be training local forces with similar kit.
@APATS
‘A better figure would surely ge the% of our total use.’
As stated earlier, which was in my 10.33pm post.
‘and just over 11% of all gas consumed.’
I know you like to come on here and tow the party line but at least the Americans are more honest.
‘In particular, Iran continues to develop an increasing capability to threaten commerce transiting the Strait of Hormuz. A disruption in energy supply would immediately and significantly affect the global economy.
And that’s where we come in.’
http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/articles/2015/Our%20New%20Maritimes%20Strategy.html#.VSIlqpOxamc
As I stated earlier the primary reason we are there is for energy security and all the other stuff is a by product.
@ David Niven
You quote the very last paragraph of what 5th Fleet does. One paragraph out of an entire page.
@Repulse. Good list
GNB
‘twat the buggers hard’
And how praydo we do that?
Given that the US and the UK et al struggled with Iraq and Afghanistan. Multiply that by 10, and it is beyondthewest to invade and hold the whole of Arabia by force…..
Let them kill themselves whilst if we back anyone it should be the Iranians.
Oh for the days of the V-Force! :)
You guys, from what I can see, are in a bit of a “neither fish nor fowl” situation. Definitely within the top 3 countries in the world in terms of an “expeditionary” deployable armed forces, yet not big enough to do it on your own, which leaves you either needing US help or following the US in and not enacting policies of your own.
Neither here nor there in other words.
@APATS
The page has 8 paragraphs of roughly equal size. The first 3 paragraphs outline the change in policy with just a mention of
‘The new strategy, titled A Cooperative Strategy for the 21st Century: Forward, Engaged, Ready, accounts for changes in the global security environment, new strategic guidance, and a changed fiscal environment since the last such document was produced in 2007.’
The next 2 its reasons.
The last 3 paragraphs outline the threat to the free flow of energy, with the straits of Hormuz getting a mention twice.
I could have pasted the entire page but the last paragraph pretty much sums it all up, with its use of the term ‘in particular’.
So in essence the 5th fleet is there to protect energy resources.
You can continue to skirt around while trying to make the killer blow while not :
A. Either wanting to or not understanding the information shown to you.
B. Treating people as if they are illiterate and stupid.
Or you can debate properly.
As I have stated before on this forum there is a reason we did not do so well in Iraq and Afghanistan and it was not all down to the military prowess of the enemy.
@David Niven
Yep Iraq and Afghanistan those great Naval conflicts. You can continue to believe it’s all about energy when even the 5th Fleet document talks about trade as well Iraq and Afghanistan and bab el mendeb
Agree largely with Pacman about becoming a world leader in humanitarian aid delivered primarily by the armed services. Much easier nowadays to act through soft power and inspiration than through force. Those carriers we can’t actually afford to man and escort and stock up with F35s could do a good job with hospitals in them (and as LPH for disaster relief) and still be affordable that way.
I don’t think Trident should be a red line. The US nuclear umbrella is more than sufficient for a deterrent that is increasingly useless against the kinds of warfare we face (insurgency, ambiguous).
We desperately need patrol aircraft, and longer term we have a great resource in solar drones which can double as AEW and C2. Inexpensive and effective if we can make the technology rock solid. Airlander might be interesting too.
So if you move away from an expeditionary stance what do you really need?
Keep: Astute (need at least these to be credible against Russian northern fleets), Type 45, GCS, OPVs, ASW and amphibious assault capability for specific tactical objectives.
Scale back: Typhoon and TFCP (keep enough for missile defence), RPAS.
Ditch: FSTA, F35B, carrier capability in general.
Might also want to consider Patriot as we’re heavily reliant on manned aircraft for BMD.
@IXION – I was admiring my learned friend @RT’s admirable clarity of thought, rather than commenting on the practicality of his plan…which you will need to take up with him. Although I do note that at least one consortium of commentators here do constantly insist that we face “no existential threat” that we bring all the trouble in the world on ourselves by “messing about in other peoples backyards”…and generally that we are the only tooled-up psychopaths in an otherwise gentle and pacific world, wasting our money on completely unnecessary “WASAWPYK” willy-waving in respect of enemies who don’t exist…so presumably if we got ourselves organised for a collective act of Western post-Colonial Colonialism we could actually do it pretty easily, as nobody but us is actually armed, dangerous and inclined to piss on the other fellows chips? :-)
On the inevitable Sunni/Shia Civil War…a rare point on which we agree…I await your observations as to how it is that the winning side (of the two, both of whom hate us and want to kill us) of a probably ten or twelve year war of the utmost savagery (crucifixions, beheadings, burnings, massacres, slavery et al)…will become good-natured and well behaved neighbours. Despite the fact that as well as being a more numerous and younger population than us, who will by then be heavily armed, steeped in the blood of innocents, and all but unemployable in any capacity but “Brutal Henchman to Blood-thirsty Warlord”…they will also be wholly motivated by the Medina Verses of the Qu’ran (the instructions for imposing a world-wide theocracy by fire and sword part of the Book)…and have completely lost any theological complexity around the idea that said Book is the given word of God, true in every respect, and not subject to discussion and interpretation…
…all of which also leaves aside what the hell we might do with countless refugees from said Civil War, and what effect their arrival might have on the already rather tenuous enthusiasm a quite big number of our own British Muslim population have for the secular enlightenment values that most of us treasure.
A rather concerned Gloomy. :-(
It will be another hollowing out, salami slicing, cut and shut job without any reappraisal of what we should/shouldn’t, can/can’t do as a nation that still has ambitions and pretensions of being a global player but with smaller forces to achieve it.
Another round of austerity will demand something like 10% saved and maybe the MOD will like last time negotiate it down to 7 or 8.
What will go?
– Cameron said he wouldn’t cut the regular Army so will slash the struggling Reserve Force instead.
– Trident will probably be cut to 3 boats, and similarly Astute No.7 looks vulnerable.
– The current frigate force will be cut to 8 vessels with the typical ‘at least 8 T26’ line as hollow comfort.
– An arbitrary second F35B order will be discussed but kicked into the very long grass.
– Similarly MARS SSS and Diligence/Argus replacements will be ignored.
– The mess that is the Army equipment plan will continue.
– The Lynx AH9 fleet will be deleted as well as a few Apaches.
– Bases like RAF Linton-on-Ouse and HMS Sultan look ripe for the closing.
– Another Bay class could be axed as well as a couple more mine-hunters.
Not sure how much all that would save. I guess the problem is it’s only slashing manpower and deleting whole systems that saves hard cash and we’re in a situation where manpower has been cut to the bone and there are no 2015 versions of the Type 22, Harriers and Nimrod that can be cut under the justification of age/cost or without seriously denting out capabilities in certain areas.
We have somehow carried on the denial about the erosion of our military potency and reach for the last five years, but we will eventually have to wake up and collectively recognize that slashing budgets, scrapping kit and firing people really does translate into a less effective, more stretched Armed Forces.
@ Challenger
I could take issue with a few of your points, especially Sultan which does an awful lotbof non RN income generation but the biggest point is the asdumption that Cameron will be calling the shots.
Isn’t the point regarding the 5th Fleet more that practically all *China’s* oil & gas imports go out of the Hormuz, and if anything happens to that, this would have drastic consequences between the US and China, because at the moment the Chinese are quietly relying on the Americans to look after it? Further, if the US doesn’t watch it, the Chinese will, which implies a US-China arms race and nobody wants that?
@Challenger
Don’t trust Cameron when he says he wont cut the regulars. Remember the NATO summit and 2%?
Trident is and will continue to be the only part of the defence budget driven by strategic requirements and not costs. If we can do it with 3 SSBNs then that is what we will get, if we cannot, then we get 4.
@Alex
If you look at the composition of 5th Fleet they have varios different TF numbered organisations. Carrier strike, Desron, Amphib, Logs, MPA, Submarines. They fulfill a variety of missions both as 5th fleet and as part of Combined Maritime Forces, COM 5th Fleet isdual hatted as COMCMF and COMUKMCC is dual hatted as his deputy.
There is a massive amount of Naval activity taking place from half wzy down the East Coadt of Africa to the NAG to the Red Sea to the IndianOcean ran out of Bahrain. Add in Naval air activity and you encompass Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan as well.
There is also standby activity they do not talk about.
APATS, are you perchance on deployment there now? :)
@Obsever
No but have been backwards and forwards a few times this year.
GNB
THEY don’t, not immediately but the Protestant and catholics settled down in the 18th century after only 200 years.
Of course there will be bits like Scotland and northern Ireland when they don’t but a bit like them no one will give much of a toss.
@ IXION “settled down…after 200 years”…during which as well as prosecuting both foreign and domestic wars with a high sectarian component…the European World also conquered most of the Americas, and started to establish both trading posts and colonies across both Africa and Asia. Experience suggests that peoples in the grip of a burning religious enthusiasm are keen not only to impose it on those of their own faith who differ as to which end of the egg to open…but also anybody else they happen to come across…
…and in this case, the Book…given by God, every word literally true, no interpretation to be entertained on pain of death…enjoins them to do exactly that; starting by making all Halal that has ever been Halal (Spain, Sicily, Southern Italy, most of the Balkans)…and then moving on to that which is Haram (everything not already brought to submission, or Islam). :-(
Furthermore, it lays out the rules of engagement…which are just the ones being followed by Daesh and their Caliph…massacre, hideous summary executions, slavery…and those rules were designed for nomadic Bedouin Armies…a modern version of whom might easily be heavily armed and bloodthirsty teenagers in very large numbers in speeding columns of technicals pouring off rusting car ferries in quiet spots with access to decent roads, food and patrol… :-( :-(
GNB
@Alex
China does use a lot of petrochems imported via the Straits of Hormuz but does draw in from the entire world supply chain using its US Dollar power to influence everywhere it can .It takes huge amounts of LNG from Australian coal bed seams, oil from the South Sudan , direct pipelines from Myanmar and the old southern Soviet Khan oil producing states , even us .
@GNB/IXION
The secret would be to ensure they finished any war armed with sticks. As for car ferries, given our total blockade of the surviving countries. Not an issue others than munitions expenditure expenditure.
@GNB
You make some good points on the current situation in the Middle East.
What scares me more than the current barbarity is the environment of bloodshed and cruelty it creates for the next generation in those countries affected to grow up in and the fact that with the best will in world there doesn’t appear to be a clear path for any external influence to take.
Glimmers of hope like the Kurdish resistance doesn’t sway me from seriously worrying about the ripple effect if these mindless butchers manage to consolidate and entrench themselves on home turf and then decide to take the war to the enemy overseas (as in us/everyone) which going by this literal and unshakable following of Islam is the desired next step.
I’m not convinced that IS is the biggest problem in the Middle East. Given that we know what they want and how they intend to achieve it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
it should not be too hard to stay ahead of them with the intelligence we have. However Saudi Arabia and Iran are working themselves up to a big old barney, aggravated by the situations in Iraq and Yemen. Saudi forces are huge. It would be wise for us not to get caught in the crossfire.
@Tiny Toy, you make an important and oft swept under the carpet point. The main event may be something much more significant and unlike defending Kuwait I am not sure we would want to do anything other than protect adjacent areas etc.
GNB
A lot of ISIS is about local support from Sunni populations.
They have not done so well when they leave there home turf. And frankly not that well when they bang up against troops that are prepared to stand up to them. (Unlike the ‘large well equiped well lead Well trained Iraqi Army we left in place when we had accomplished our mission of removing an evil tyrant ((tm) A Blair), and deaparted mission completed.)*
Anyway ISIS is a symptom not the disease.
I have a question related to the original premise… in an oblique way.
We have plenty of evidence of the resources (people and proportion of GDP) committed to defence being cut over the past 30 years.
Is there any evidence that these cuts have subsequently resulted in greater economic growth or is this something which has not been studied to any degree?
Jennings, I think it’s the other way round, the cuts were the result of a dip in the economy (2008) which left a situation of too many bills and an unexpected shortage of cash. And Defence (yes, with a capital D), is unfortunately one of the few areas that can be cut without too much side effects, especially in a very stable Western Europe. So there was no real growth, it was taking money to patch problem areas, not investment and expansion.
It’s something like the US bailout of big companies. It wasn’t to grow them, it was to prevent them from failing and causing even more chaos.
6 years down the road and the screw ups then are still affecting us today. I’ll be honest and say that I know that I’m a lot more fortunate than a lot of the people here simply because of the luck of location and government. The economic crisis, while painful, was not crippling to us, it just reduced overall growth rates, meaning that there was still growth during that time.
@apats & IXION…not anticipating a full scale confrontation with the Daesh Third Shock Army for some years yet…more a slow motion train crash at a large rail junction…with an unmanageable refugee crisis exploding towards the four corners of the earth, but mostly north and west…and of course a continued outflow of our own youngsters keen to join the fun…the whole business adding greatly to the gaiety of nations.
The Daesh Third Shock won’t come along until we have turned our backs on that for ten or twelve years…and might not happen at all if we keep our hand in the game, alongside our various allies; but if it does a fence won’t help, and they won’t be armed with sticks. :-(
Stick our fingers in our ears, and go la-la-la…by further reducing defence spending…different story, in my considered opinion.
GNB
@GNB
Having spent a fair bit of time in a seemingly futile effort to rain various ME forces and witnessed exacxtly what they do to a lot their kit (echoed by mark and Topman) I really fail to see any fear from your “daesh third shock” especially if it comes out of the end of a massive war where we may choose to not only starve the participants of any kit but actively destroy both sides advanced systems.
An asymmetric threat, possibly dependent on how benign we are in terms of control but a conventional threat, wait a pink elephant :)
@apats – How well motivated were your students? One’s impression as an outsider is that the Daesh crew seem to be rather more serious about the whole business than their local opposition…much as Al Quaeda and the Taliban seem to have been. Obviously can’t affect technical aptitude, but might have a big effect on concentration and application…could that have an impact on how well lessons are learned and then implemented?
I should add I don’t doubt your analysis, but fear that further cuts to capacity might make keeping an eye on the pot much harder.
GNB
@GNB
Some good some bad, some keen some not but the key issue is discipline and tactics, that is a cultural weakness and has been demonstrated by the “daesh” as much as anyone else whenever they have run into well disciplined opposition with a grasp of tactics.
On the quality and motivation of troops specifically the Iraqi troops I was surprised how quickly they rolled over in the First Gulf War ( it could be they were told to keep engagement down and bug out though its true to say ).. After the bloodbath of the Persian War from 80 to 88 were both sides are estimated to have upto a half a million dead on each side and fought bitter spitting distance warfare in the difficult terrain around the Shat-al-Arab that the Iraqi Army put up such limited resistance in terms of small groups AK’d in hand fighting street to street , house to house not the mincemeat of Soviet armour by Abrams, Challangers etc plus the overwhelming airpower. What was the spark that sent kids barely out of school into open charges in to machineguns to gain a patch of dirt? Is that spark rekindled by the calprick and his cronies ( all nicely tucked up safe and sound no doubt well away from things that go bang until Uncle Predator comes knocking – f** k the collaterals, they will be just slaves who want out anyway) . If it is his/ their rhetoric should they serpents head be cut off or if he has the military genius of Hitler deliberately left in place to screw it up from the inside.
Sorry monkey, I couldn’t make head or tail of that post.
Monkey,
You are probably correct at an operational level, which I’d put down to crap generals.
But at a tactical or even lower a human level, they fought hard. I had to go bayonet on a sodding SMG*** (out of ammo) to swung AK74 in a roofed trench with one of their boys. I managed to stab him in the thigh, which wasn’t my first intention but sort of worked out as a score draw as he then stopped trying to fight and surrendered.
No one wants to die easily.
*** HMG. You had between 1942 and 1991 to work out a decent weapon for my war. Why TF did you issue me with an SMG?
A thought-provoking article from Standpoint titled ‘The Return of War’ about the two major threats to world peace and stability: http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/5972/full
I particularly agree with this bit:
@Observer
From 1980 to 1988 Iraq and Iran fought a very very bitter border war which Saddam started . It very quickly defended into World War One style trench warfare despite the modern kit available to both sides ( it was only a year after the Shan of Iran’s downfall and he was a big spender on Western military kit) at the end of the conflict which ended similarly to WW1 in a stalemate , little territory gained or lost measured in metres not kilometres , both sides had millions in uniform and certainly on the Iranian side some just children i.e. under 16 and much less , involved in Korean War style human wave attacks . My point being that when ISIS started gaining so much territory against a very well equipped and allegedly so well trained Iraqi army , Abrams M1 v Toyota pickup truck , how the f**k did it happen ?
Monkey
One word: politics. There was a power play between the last Government and the US/Kurd/Sunni to change the composition and attitude of the Shia dominated government. I’m sure there was other causes, but this was certainly a major one.
Dunservin
I don’t disagree with anything you write or quote, but there is also a different point of view.
Putin is as much as a cold warrior as some of the US neocons, with a clear view on what the world needs and how he can maintain his powerbase. Is he a threat to the west (ie US/Western Europe) ? Certainly not now and probably never. Is he a threat to the traditional Russian sphere of interest ? Yes, clearly, especially where there are minority Russian populations. However, this threat has also been exacerbated by the way the minority Russian population has been treated by their host countries. Arguably, this population has missed out on he fruits of economic growth in certain places and finds itself (at least in their own minds if not also reality) unwanted and unloved in places where they and families have lived for a relatively long time.
Realistically IS isn’t a threat to the west right now, and seems the thrive in failed or failing states. Clearly there is something in its Sharia law message that strongly appeals to a minority of mainstream Islamic thought that isn’t available from elsewhere, regardless of its barbarity. I certainty don’t pretend to know what this is, but I’d argue that its roots lie in failed economies and the difficulty Islam has with accommodating the modern world.
The question we face is one of where does vigilance end and rearmament begin ? For western Europe in particular, surely we remain in the shadow of the twin legacies of industrialised warfare and colonialism ?
All quite depressing. We have a Navy likely to be able to amass one carrier task group with sort of adequate numbers of T45 and T23/26 protection for the very grand carrier but upon said grand carrier just six pointy-nosed jets, in addition perhaps a couple of frigates and a few patrol vessels and mine hunters to cover UK interests around the globe. We have an Air Force of something like five dozen pointy jets, plus transport planes and a few surveillance assets and a small fleet of helicopters for Army support. We have an Army numbering about the same as the casualties sustained in one day (1st July 1916) when the Somme Offensive kicked off, equipped with armour between 30 and 60 years old but even then the numbers are painfully low – according to Pravda last June the rebel forces in Donetsk had control of 221 MBTs plus many other bits of armour, the UK can on a good day field 277 MBTs – does that make the rebel forces in Ukraine a World Power?
But on the other hand this is supposed to be one of the World’s big economies; a seat at the top table at all the clubs of which we are members (except the EU, obviously); World Policemen; Guardians of the Peace and Arbiters of Good Taste in All Things. With such august credentials how do we manage to fund what is in effect the scale of a militia as our National Defence?
Yesterday a Tory MP (now candidate) was asked directly what the Tories’ intentions were for improving UK Defence if they were re-elected and the answer (with much waffle and snipes that the question “denigrated the brilliant efforts of our brave servicemen and women”) was that UK was funding at levels no worse than the other EU nations and that she personally thought spend should stay at 2% GDP. She also commented “Defence is not an issue brought up by the people I meet”. So even face to face no would-be politician can bring themselves to declare their party thinks Defence worth protecting.
With a little rewording to replace Seattle with reference to our once great country, maybe we should put up signs as did Boeing in 1971: http://ritlandpainting.com/images/1971.jpg
@Nick
“The question we face is one of where does vigilance end and rearmament begin ? ”
That is THE question that’s has plagued politicians forever. Defence is a bottomless pit in terms of spending , there is always a new super weapon or technology that with just a few extra billions ( often tens or hundreds and if its F35 shaped thousands of billions) will ‘secure’ the nation. Where to draw the line is influenced by so many factors the right balance is almost impossible to achieve , Costa Rica choose no spending , the USA more than the next half dozen budgets added together. Generally I think based on our spending is about right, its just usually badly spent :-(
ToC
The 221 Ukraine rebel tanks are T72 and T64 aren’t they ? I’m sure there’s a chart somewhere that tells our beloved politico’s that 1 Challenger 2 is equivalent to 10 soviet era tanks. Our force must therefore be the equivalent of 2,770. Result: piece of mind and perhaps we don’t need that many ….
Repeat the logic for T45, Typhoon o F35B whenever we actually get one that can do what its supposed to
Also refer back to the recent damage to HMS Talent and our Zero Attrition Policy…
Thought I’d pop this into the mix.
Perhaps it is time (both in terms of available finance and world threats) for the UK and France to throttle back to two SSBNs each, aiming to maintain one deployed at all times and one in reserve for the other nation.
This provides CASD for the EU and a non-continuous strategic nuclear deterrent for both the UK and France independently.
I also think that if we did this we may as well build some nice large SSBNs with many missiles containing single, double, quad, and eight warheads. This provides a tactical nuclear strike capability to further deter rogue nuclear actors.
@Chris
Thanks for posting. First time I’ve seen that but it’s rather eery. Immediately after graduating from high school in Bellevue on the opposite side of Lake Washington from Seattle, I left my family in 1970 and returned to the UK to join the Royal Navy the following year. My father was subsequently made redundant from Boeing but managed to ride out the storm.
However, look how Seattle has recovered since then. The Hawks even won the Superbowl in 2013.
RESURGAM! ;-)
@Chris
“We have a Navy likely to be able to amass one carrier task group”
You say that as if it is a negative? Like you say, it will be escorted with adequate numbers of T-45 and T-23/26 – escorts whose capabilities compare favorably with our peers. Of course the initial plan for only 6 embarked F-35B is a little concerning. But only in the short term, until when we inevitably get our second F-35B squadron. At our last main-gate in a few years time we may see possibly orders to equip a 3rd and final F-35B squadron – realistically we will never see more than that.
Ultimately, what other maritime powers remain that will be able to do the above? A Russian task force still counts tug boats among its strength, the French can only amass one carrier task group on a part-time basis and the Chinese are still a significant way aways from having a go anywhere CBG.
If our overseas commitments only require a handful of Frigates, OPVs and MCM vessels on station, is it necessarily a bad thing we meet those commitments with those types of vessels?
The surveillance and ISTAR assets of the RAF is what separates us from other medium sized air forces and we probably have the best air-lift capacity in NATO (outside the USAF) with C-17s and future A400Ms. The French required the assistance of our C-17s and ISTAR assets during Mali, for example.
Likewise, after Afghan the RAF probably has the second best helicopter fleet in NATO with 80+ Chinooks and Pumas, not to mention almost 30 Merlin in the RN and Wildcat/Lynx in the Army. I don’t know why you see that as something to be looked down upon.
Where we do agree is with the lack of fast-jet squadrons, which is currently down to 6 or 7. Overstretch in this regard is a sure concern and needs rectifying. We need 5 Typhoon squadrons (as planned), get the two F-35B squadrons online as soon as possible and seriously look to funding a third. By 2030 we should have already looked towards replacing Typhoon with a mixture of F-35A and a BAE Taranis type UCAV.
You forgot Maritime Patrol.
@Simon
Thats a very interesting idea, cooperation with the French on CASD. I wonder how that would work? If say it was the turn of the French to send an SSBN on patrol and the UK was threatened with an attack by a rouge nuclear armed state? Might the French get cold feet?
Or perhaps the SSBNs would be mixed RN and French crewed?
WhitestElephant,
I see it as two boats commanded by their respective military working in cooperation to provide an EU CASD but only a reactive independent nuclear deterrent.
So if for example someone launched a nuclear attack on one of our islands and the French boat is on patrol, it would be up to us to “surge” our available boat (from training or transit) and respond accordingly.
i.e. we react as though we only own two boats.
If, however, there is an attack on the EU, we respond as one be it a French or British boat on patrol.
It might also allow us to suggest that some funding from the EU pay for some of it. Not necessarily the benefit of nuclear technology or industry, but in terms of the protection it ultimately offers.
Whitest – my sentiments are as Nick notes above – our decision makers (possibly for reasons of budget limitation) constantly declare our equipment to be the best in the world and so as a result we need far fewer platforms/systems/bullets/whatever to be a major world military power. Your post just above echoes these sentiments. I on the other hand, being an engineer, ignore such hyperbole and look instead at the machinery. Here of course I have to declare a bias towards understanding AFVs more than pointy jets or fine Grey funnel Line vessels.
Our armour developed by the Government Establishments was at the point of introduction literally the best in the World. There was nothing like Challenger in the early 80s; Chobham was leaps ahead of other armour, the L11 gun was top-dog, the 1200hp power-pack was mighty compared to other nations’ vehicles. Against T-72 it had the advantage. Since then, Challenger has had a turret & gun upgrade with better FCS/sights, a comms change, some bolt-on TES-ware. Outside the UK the US has produced M1 Abrams, Germany the Leo 2, France the Leclerc – all very much in the Challenger rank of abilities. South Korea’s K2 is supposed to be better still. In Russia there has been T-80, T-84, T-90 and now just starting delivery the Armata. By what measure (apart from nationalistic pride) can we be certain our ageing MBT still out-performs all others? We have already decided (as a nation) that CVR(T) no longer has the capability it once had, not because the vehicle has deteriorated but because the opposition got better. Hence FRES Frankentank. Warrior is being given as much of an upgrade as it can stand to make it a bit more robust in the face of new threats. Panther is already behind the curve. Our newest armour, Mastiff Ridgeback, Wolfhound are trucks of modest mobility and are not combat vehicles; Foxhound is a useful if expensive battlefield minibus. As a nation, with the exception of the billions poured into FFLAV/TRACER/FRES for little effect, the UK has not been keeping up with the Joneses when it comes to armour. And now its all quite old, to have such small fleets does not bode well.
When it comes to the RN, money has been spent on new platforms. But very very few of them. This being a subject often aired in TD. Our new ships and SSNs may be the best compared to other nations’ vessels, but if war kicked off the RN could protect what? Maybe 100nm radius patch of the oceans? Could we protect convoys (plural), support coastal assault, chase down enemy surface vessels, delouse waters of enemy submarines? All at the same time? The issue for the RN is that, unlike humble tanks/IFVs/smaller armour, the build time is so drawn out. If we had 24 months’ warning of major hostile action, how many new grey warships would we be able to commission?
Similarly the RAF has a very thin layer of air-superiority assets. These are not easy things to manufacture quickly either (although they ought to be moderately easy to churn out – they are not that big and are supposed to have fully interchangeable systems and components throughout). That we have lots of transport planes might be a moot point if the opposition hold air superiority.
At this point the normal counter-argument is NATO; other nations will do stuff for us, whatever we need. Sometimes I wonder if any organisation accurately monitors the full NATO set of capabilities and tweaks the military of member countries if it thinks a capability is getting weak? Or whether there’s a huge handful of blind faith that ‘someone else’ will have everything we need. And the willingness to use it.
My gut feel is that international hostilities emerge within something like six months from diplomatic tantrums to deployment of fighting military – or so it seems. If you prefer, the time between the two states “War is unlikely” to “War is declared”. So it seems to me the proper level of defence for any nation should be that which in 6 months could be brought to war readiness? I don’t think any Western European nation (UK included) is anywhere near that prepared.
The new T-14 MBT and its sister the T-15 IFV will be the new benchmark IMHO , their firepower , armour and manoeuvrability will outclass anything the west is yet producing inc the Merkava/Namer . The gun system is well-known and combat proven , they have designed the chassis with heavy offroad performance in mind and to operate in temperatures down to -60C . There is no way by now that they have not learnt the secrets of Chobham/ Dorchester and given it a 21st Century update. We all get to see them in this years Victory parade in Red Square this May.
A bit upthread the question came up how Germany sees this “protect the trade routes” matter. Seems S O didn’t comment on this, and it’s been two days since that came up, but I’ll still dare to give my impression. First, the only time I can recall where this was a public discussion in any capacity was around the time the Atalanta mission was started. You know, that Anti-Somalian Pirates-thing mostly based off Djibouti which saw almost every remotely relevant naval power send a few ships, even Japan (I think that was their first naval deployment overseas since the World War).
This saw topics covered like anti-boarding equipment for trade ships, how GPS works, the ethics of paying ransom all the time rather than mount a special forces operation (and having the Netherlands mount a special forces operation on Germany’s behalf because we had no means of getting the necessary equipment there in time, which is why we are building a dedicated special forces ships now – the F125 frigate which by the way will not have a VLS according to all sources I have so far seen. It can transport two SF groups though). We are still participating in Atalanta with a frigate, that operation is lead by a Martin Smith MBE.
And that is basically it. We’re also participating in UNIFIL with a Corvette, that is apparently all we’re doing in actual naval operations. Notably, all military operations Germany is participating in are either offical EU work (Atalanta) or UN (UNIFIL, Afghanistan, etc.). The navy is also involved in the standing NATO deployment groups, but they are standing.
Did I mention the public is generally opposed to any military operation? I’ll mention it again. It not being a public discussion makes it easier to keep it running.
This has roused people’s ire the last time I said it, and from what I saw S O has confirmed it from his perspective, but unless it is an official mission with international backing or a literal requirement of a treaty Germany signed, we do generally not sending any troops. At least not for combat (I think we sent some medics to Iraq after the combat was done, and I know Japan sent some people). This is apparently seen as cowardice in an english-speaking context, but the convention in Germany is to fulfill contract or treaty obligations to the letter, at least publicly (of course backroom dealings are excluded, but those go either way).
If there was a UN mandate to protect the Gulf trade or an official EU requirement to contribute a full carrier escort group or a specfic mention of 2% GDP in the NATO treaty, Germany would likely do it, even if the public is disgruntled (that is the other side of the bureaucratic red tape). Unless that happens, it will be subject to politics and public approval, which is public disapproval more often than anything else.
Though if the military rather gives back the money they got to order spare parts rather than order spare parts (which is what happened, therefore broomsticks) that won’t help either.
Dunservin – at the end of the 80s I spent a few weeks working in Seattle on one of Boeing’s smaller sites. From what I saw it seemed a pretty good place to work; certainly Seattle itself was a nice place to live. As it happens our digs were in Bellevue in the Red Lion which was not the quaint little pub it sounds like. A fine experience and an interesting corner of the world to visit.
Going up to look at the crater at Mt. St.Helens was memorable – full-grown pine trees knocked flat and stripped of branches and bark 8 miles from the eruption, and a new magma bump in the crater that was (the information board said) larger than Downtown Seattle. The seismologists were even then warning of dire consequences should Mt. Rainier blow like Mt. St.Helens did (something like twice the bulk of St.Helens and half the distance from Seattle).
@Chris
Thanks for the post.
I don’t think there is any government intention (or rather delusion) that we are somehow a “major world military power”. Really only the United States fulfills that role, and the entirety of NATO. Russia and China are perhaps major military powers in their region, but not globally.
The UK is, and has been for a longtime, a medium sized military power. Yes, we are probably the only other medium sized military power besides France, and as such play an important role in global affairs. But as a nation are we really going to be tasked with doing all the things you suggest simultaneously?
I believe that some of the threats you talk about -protecting convoys, sea control, engaging enemy surface vessels and delousing the ocean of enemy submarines- implies large scale engagement of a peer opponent. At which point, the US, France and the rest of NATO are almost certainly involved.
Our job is provide the core high-end capabilities with enough quantity to remain credible and effective. This is one of the reasons why the Americans value us so much as an ally. Because we are capable to work along side them independently from day 1.
NATO is also full of frigates, whose owners do not have carrier strike, or SSNs or a large supporting RFA. In the types of threats you talk of, those frigates would be escorting UK led, or French led task groups fighting along-side USN CBGs.
Like you, I have often pointed out how destroyers, submarines and fast-jets are both more costly, time consuming and complex to build than a tank or IFV. With ever shrinking budgets, the RAF and RN should therefore be preserved as much as possible at the expense of the Army.
Armies are much easier to rebuild, and while NATO may be full of frigates, it is positively overflowing with troops, tanks and armoured vehicles.
Having now read the article and comments can I drag the conversation back to the original point? If you look at SDR2015 you’re first question has to be to identify the foreseeable risks the UK Plc faces these appear to be :
1. State Actors (usually donated in Red!) who will be equipped with equivalent equipment. That threatens directly the UK and Nato.
2. Cyber Risks.
3. Irregular Forces such as the Taliban, ISIS or Al-Quida etal who you may have to provide protection from either militarily or for Aid Delivery.
4. Actions by Smaller States (Eg Argentina) over territorial disputes. Plus the support of Gibraltar and Commonwealth Countries that we are bound by treaty to do.
5. Open Sea Routes. Be this assisting the US and GULF Countries in maintaining open deliveries of Gas/Oil or even assisting China in maintaining trade routes through SE Asian seas because one of their neighbours has cut up rough about their activities in the South China Sea. This does not mean policing the World’s Oceans but having the ability to deploy worldwide to deal with choke points etc.
6. Policing operations such as Pirates of Somalia or Drug smugglers in the Caribbean. Emergency Aid relief.
7. CASD
Once you have decided those priorities then you design your forces to meet those threats. Personally I don’t think it can be done on anything less than 2% of GDP but if you can come up with a plan that can do it for less including all the elements you need (Army, Air force, Navy) please let me know. If not cut 1 to 7 above as you see fit, but don’t pretend to do 1 to 7 above without the proper equipment and size it just makes you a laughing stock.
@Whitest Elephant:
“Like you, I have often pointed out how destroyers, submarines and fast-jets are both more costly, time consuming and complex to build than a tank or IFV.”
Strange that really considering that most of the designs of naval vessels are evolutions. Perhaps if the RN hadn’t mismanaged the T45 show to the extent that each boat costs about £1bn they could have had more.
Or maybe gone for more of but less capable bits of kit.
Or perhaps the RAF could have been revolutionary and picked out aircraft that can fly in bad weather. Not like aircraft that apparently can’t fly near bad weather yet – the fabled F35 – or gets too hot on the runway – the fabled F35 – an aircraft so past it’s ISD that it will be old before it arrives.
When it comes to wasting cash the Army does waste it – yup – but when it comes to p***ing away billions the Light and Dark Blues do that in some style – most respectfully of course.
I know the Green Machine s**t on the doorstep over FRES but at least FRES as an over arching concept was new – planes and boats have been around for a while. Even fighty ones.
Hellfire – I’ve just realised…..I sound like an ‘outsider version of Red Trousers’.
*reaches hurriedly for the rum*.
“Or maybe gone for more of but less capable bits of kit.”
This would allow us to keep more vessels active at any one time, provide attrition-able hulls and fulfill more tasking.
Cost of crews and “quantity has a quality” quotes inter alia aside…
…what happens when one of our cheaper and more numerous but less capable “Guerriere-class” needs to deal with a “Constitution-class”?
The Ginge,
1. 80 x multi-role Typhoon.
2. Existing GCHQ funding and monitoring of all internet traffic in/out of the UK (law changes).
3. Retreat into ourselves and defend our borders with a coastguard. Use Bay-class for humanitarian ops.
4. Long-range strategic bombers. Oh, and get the WE177 back to provide another arm (or wing) to the nuclear deterrent.
5. 12 x frigates and 4 one-stop supply ships.
6. Use above “in theatre” frigates.
7. 2 x SSBN shared with France.
With the exception of point 4 I think that’s about 1/2 of our current defence budget.
I’d therefore make point 4 economically viable by developing a large multi-role aircraft for AWACS, SIGINT, MPA, tankering, and strategic bombing. As I’ve said before, the A330 seems to fit the mould quite well… with a few modifications (e.g. rotating bomb/mission bay).
@Simon
Basically you want a 330 version of the 747 CMCA – This “Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft” variant.
I do like the idea of a common platform for all uses.
The other option would be that we could try and get the Americans to sell us there B1 fleet they have never been fans of it anyway. Good second hand deal and an upgrade program to B1R spec.
A330 is an expensive platform list price for a commercial one is about 250m dollars you would be looking at 2.5 to 3 times that price for its conversion to types suggested, there is always the second hand market but the raf does not like aircraft at different airframe mod standards. Airbus are in the process of beginning the transition to the a330 neo and that will cost more. I don’t think the UK has the financial capability to make that type there multi role aircraft of choice.
@Mark
2015 price list
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release-detail/detail/new-airbus-aircraft-list-prices-for-2015/
A cheaper multi-role fleet basis would be the 87 usable S-3 airframes at AMARG.
9,000 flight hours remaining on them before the next wing inspection.
EDIT: 72 Harriers sold to the USMC and put into AMARG for £116m. Can’t remember if that included the $50m spares inventory sale as well.
TOC – ref what happens when one of our cheaper and more numerous but less capable “Guerriere-class” needs to deal with a “Constitution-class”? – well that’s an interesting question because it has two opposing responses. The first, and the one I guess you expected, is that our light cruiser has an uphill fight on its hands; not necessarily one it would lose but certainly one at which it would be at a disadvantage. The second response is that there would be an increased probability of not being able to engage at all if there are only insufficient numbers of more capable heavier cruisers available. Which of these represents the greater risk in a warfighting scenario? Engaging a dangerous foe with lighter weight assets, or not being able to stand in its way at all?
I looked up WW2 naval losses earlier, and found most of the battleship losses were to torpedo attack from what were at the time much smaller cheaper vessels, both submarines and in at least one case a destroyer. Sometimes the underdog wins out.
And sometimes the all singing all dancing heavyweight loses. I believe there were twice as many T42 as there are T45? If a T42 had been lost from the fleet of 12, the loss of capability would have been 8%. If one T45 were to be lost it would cut the capability we now have by 16%. As we build ever more complex and expensive platforms in ever smaller numbers, the impact of a single loss (to hostile action, accident or malfunction) becomes ever more critical. You would think then that (in the case of the RN) to protect these more critical assets there would be a greater number of escorts? No we reduced their numbers too. You could see a case where at some point, like elements of the German Navy in both World Wars, the UK might consider the sending of its warships to sea too risky, as the loss of any platform might render the RN critically weakened. The MOD has set itself a zero-attrition strategy, so it cannot risk attrition.
@Chris
A fascinating post that totally ignores capabilities and the likelihood of loss. So having 12 platforms incapable of doing their job is better than 6 that can.
It is not an 80% game.
APATS – while T42 were long in the tooth and their missiles had shorter range than T45, I don’t recall them being described as ‘incapable’? And, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the original intent to buy 12 T45 (or was it 8 at the outset?), this number being reduced to 6 because CEC would make them so much more effective? When CEC was cancelled the number of platforms then declared adequate was – um – six?? So while Aster is a more capable missile, and the T45’s radar horizon is a bit further out than T42 because its mast is higher, I don’t get where the one platform was totally useless and the other completely perfect and invulnerable. And whether perfect or not, each of the fewer hulls cannot be in more than one place at a time.
@APATS, but as you have said on many occasions, 6 can’t be in the places that 12 can. As of now, I agree 6 world class ships, especially with CVF upcoming is better and more appropriate than 12 less decent AAW escorts. But if the numbers of threats increases, we can’t cover them all with 6 world class AAWs and in the absence of a huge extra pot of money would have to look at either ‘gapping threats’ or a larger number of less capable but still decent vessels. We would never build 12 vessels incapable of doing a job. That comparison is ridiculous in the extreme. There is level of capability that many navies employ that is between T26 and T45 in terms of AAW that they would argue was ‘decent’. They can’t all be wrong
@Apats
The critical two things on a T45 to perform its air defence role are it incredible RADAR (and the associated electronic wizardry that present the information it gathers and integrates it with other Intel transmitted to the ship) and the people who make the decision’s. The two combined then task a weapons system . Could the survivabity of this criticsal package be enhanced by packing the onboard VSL with close in defensive missiles ,quad packed or whatever for self defence , and another much cheaper platform used to house the medium/ longer range missiles which are tasked by data link from the T45 as required. In this way the critical asset is unlikely to be able to be overwhelmed as it has lots of point defence for itself and the bulk of the longer range weaponry carried by a much simpler vessel sailing in partnership. The limiting factor on a T45 being its weapons load out and having so few tubes which in a prolonged engagement could be left defenceless in effect by repeated attacks.
@Chris
…so most times it loses.
…so most times it wins.
Remember that this discussion concerns not only the likely success of our ships when they stand into danger but also the lives of the servicemen and servicewomen on board them. Snatch Land Rovers all over again.
How do you solve the unit cost = fewer than needed dilemma then?
No easy answers are there
Notwithstanding the A rating on the AAW suite, T45 in my view repeats the mistake of the T42 in being too small and hence limited missile load out for area AAW (even if it could quad pack seaceptor). Its alright saying there is a Chinook cable flight deck but that is partly where the other silos should have been. Assuming 6 gives us 2 available for any CVF deployment, then those 6 should have been double ended and more like a modern Bristol or the long T43. T26 should become more area AAW capable after the initial 6-8 ASW dedicated vessels
Yes with the Type 45 the original order was for 12 then 8 then 6. The order was reduced after the first one was already in production so the spec had already been decided by that stage. So there was never a question of there being a lower spec for more hulls.
With the delays in getting the Type 26 maybe they could fill the gap with some extra 45s to keep the docks in work.
Is 6 enough to cover the work load? when 12 were what was the original plan.
Solving the …unit cost = fewer than needed… dilemma.
I can think of one way. Multi-role. It’s what we’re having to do with everything else!
Stop building ships dedicated to a particular task. Build a single class of ship that can do all tasks – like the USN Arleigh Burke.
Question for NaB or APATS,
Is CEC fitted to more than just Duncan yet?
I picked the Constitution vs Guerriere example deliberately because as a Case Study it doesn’t just illustrate the flaws with “80% is good enough thinking” it also represents a Twain-esque “historical rhyme” and an example of a successful model to build upon.
A backdrop of debt, defence low on the public agenda, political opposition, isolationism proposals, bigger boys in the playground, etc. Well worth reading up if any readers are unfamiliar.
The new Navy and Humphreys approach for the “Original Six” frigates was to produce a smaller number of truly World Class cruiser-role vessels. They couldn’t be everywhere, but where they were deployed they were more than capable of handling themselves, as the Royal Navy in particular learned. Though the lesson learned was not exclusive to the British.
As the US situation improved their proven designs, approach and operating procedures could be built upon.
Note the US chose to develop a class of highly capable 40-odd-gun frigate, not an uber-100-gun-first-rate. Resources were limited. They didn’t opt for “Zumwalts”.
I may be reading Zambellas and the other Service Chiefs incorrectly, but I think they’re all of the same mind: We can’t deploy everywhere and so we won’t, but where we do deploy we’re capable.
The problem the Chiefs have is maintaining an absolute minimum number of capable assets so we’re not completely exposed and choosing where to deploy the few highly capable assets that we have. Opinion is quite rightly going to be divided on this. Working out what this line is and how they do that must be hard.
Oh, and I bet they’re crossing their fingers and hoping that situations improve and we can build upon our proven designs, approach and procedures.
Dear All,
But surely the question you are trying to argue over of cost = fewer than needed question be it 12 instead of 6 T45’s or 48 F35B’s giving us only 2 Squadrons to deploy on the aircraft carrier etc shows that you need to choose your options 1 to 7 as I listed earlier to fit what you are prepared to pay for if you think outside the box and start thinking.
So for example with regard to the AAW issue. If you give every T45 the CEC system is there an argument that when you look at the replacement for the MCM vessels you look at say 18 vessels built to keep up with the Carriers, Amphibs, T45’s but with a flat reconfigurable rear deck. Most of the time they have Mine Warfare Kit on board only doing that job from a stand off position using remote equipment in the Gulf. But if say you are doing Falklands Mk2 you take out the Mine Containers and stick 4 containers of anti-air missiles at the back with a Data Link to the controlling T45 which has all the expensive Radars and people on board. Or 4 containers to fly Wildcat anti Sub flights with a T26 in overall control.
So for example you could place four of these remote vessels in San Carlos waters without risking your irreplaceable T45 in there. Similarly you would have the CBG with 1 T45 and 6 Support vessels provide the bubble of space around the Carrier, you very easily go from 1 AAW Destroyer to having 7 platforms available. These Vessels would be very simple, with cheap Radar to operate on their own, with say a permanent Crew of 20, a small 30mm/50mm Gun for self-defence. In the long term they may be crewless but that does limit there ability to do other tasks.
So for non-warfighting you might have one with a containerised Air Support system to operate a Helicopter or disaster pack with a big containerised water system in the Caribbean doing that job rather than a T45/26, or MCM kit in the Gulf or a Royal Marines accommodation and small boat section for Somali Pirates, have 3 accompany the Carrier on Deployment and do port visits
The key is the boats themselves must be cheap £75m a pop with the costs in the 4 containers that sit on the stern, in a real emergency for example you might stick the MCM gear on a commercial oil support tug, or your design might be that type of ship in the first place. But the key is that it must fit in 4 40 foot containers. But unlike the Americans with the LCS don’t Gold plate them, don’t make it cost as much as a T26, all the kit must fit in 4 containers that can be shipped or flown around the globe, don’t expect them to do 40knots and act like a top of the line kit, that only happens when they are networked with a top of the line piece of kit.
That way you maximise your expensive Kit in the T45 without putting it in the most dangerous locations.
Just one idea to think outside the box and get more bang for your buck.
… Maybe you can use those River-class offshore patrol ships for what The Ginge suggested, then you would at least get some use out of them.
@Ginge
‘Just one idea to think outside the box and get more bang for your buck.’
That is all we need to do, we don’t need a bigger budget the one we have is fine and we could still have a decent military with a slightly smaller budget. The ‘MOD Black Hole’ was mainly due to the cost of programs so we sacrificed manpower as well as a few platforms so we can carry on chasing gold plated platforms.
Modular warships would be ideal craft for the future, you just need a long lasting hull and plug and play modules, not that I would suggest a 30 minute swap or the likes. Pull and upgrade the modules for the long haul. The US’s LCS program was flawed on the management side, not the concept of the ship itself. And their ability to integrate with the rest of the fleet.
Wonder if someone more focused might have better luck than the US if they recreated the project.
I read of quite a number of current ship designs that follow a modular approach like this, among others the Mehrzweckkampfschiff 180 that is currently in design for the Bundesmarine. I think Japan and India or Russia were also looking into something like that. So the technology is clearly going to be explored further.
The issue with using a datalink system like suggested is that many capabilities already lean on that, and countermeasures are certain to pop up fairly soon. Drones can already be jacked, and I’m not sure how the EWar balance is between warships. Directional Antennas should be fairly difficult to jam at visual distances, but anything else I have a hard time seeing as relieable. And I only know a rough outline of current EWar technology.
What a load of nonsense.
If you spend less, if you fail to resource key capabilities, then you lose that capability. UK Armed Forces plc include a number of capabilities that are deemend to be desirable by our allies, and which pose a threat sufficient to be factored into Russian defence planning. If you cannot afford to resource your defence requirement, then you accept a lesser capability, you accept that your allies will lower their estimation of your value, and your opponent will be less concerned about posing a significant threat of their own. You cannot spend less and gain more. Technological gimmickry is not a solution, nor is modularity, multi-role capability, quad-packing or any other such techno-twaddle. If we can’t afford to resource our defence, then it’s about time that the corps of self-centred attention-seeking vanity cases we call Government accept their responsibilities, front up to the reality and do something meaningful rather than talk incessantly about subjects nobody cares about.
Except of course, that nobody wants to lose international standing. So we play the game – how little can we get away with spending to maintain the illusion of a capability? And hope that we are not tested.
Anyway, who cares about Russia? Their bank balance is pretty much in the toilet and not improving so long as oil remains at rock-bottom prices and sanctions remain in place. Talk of advanced weaponry is wasted breath – Russia is playing the ‘catch-up-with-Western-tech’ race and will lose – they are no more immune to defence inflation than we are and they have an awful lot of hardware to replace and/or modernise. A thousand tanks need an awful lot of spares, fuel and ammunition – how do you buy that when you are overdrawn? And have a thriving China on your other border? Everybody forgets that the battleground is not military – as always it is political and economic, and defence is not the answer.
…it is political and economic…
Not in a communist dictatorship it isn’t.
Simon
Are there any of those left outside North Korea ? Even in state controlled China they are having to do something about air pollution because its unacceptable to the new and growing middle class (which includes many party members). Similarly Putin needs to keep the bulk of his population on side (he’s lost a lot of the business community and the middle class in Moscow already), which means jobs and pensions dependent (very heavily) on oil taxes.
@Mick P
Would you care to name these vessels between T26 and T45 AAW capability that offer a genuine AAW capability?
Nick,
I suppose if you subscribe to the illusion of a democracy that Putin paints then fair enough. However, I will yield the “communist” bit and replace with “plutocracy” ;-)
The point I’m trying to make is that just because their bank balance is low on the international stage doesn’t mean anything at all if they pull up the drawbridge. He can win back the populous by blaming “the west” for their financial position whilst trying to “play the commerce game”. They still have abundant natural resources and manpower.
I’m just waiting for someone to strike a deal with him on how to carve up Poland.
Not wishing to start the “blame game”, but one of the reasons why the Nimrod MR-4 was scrapped in the last Defence Review, was due to the Service Chiefs “in-house” fighting and protecting their individual services. In the case of the RAF, they saw the loss of the MPA’s as a Maritime capability – basically a Navy problem, so it was an easy decision for them to accept without damaging “core” RAF capability. This is the sort of ill-judged recommendations you get when Service Chief’s are forced to be selective and naturally biased to protecting their own core capabilities. However, Liam Fox, the Defence Minister at the time, should have had better judgement or impartial advise on what “core” capabilities needed to be retained.
Not only did the Royal Navy loose all its MPA / ASW cover – it was then forced to loose it carriers and the Harriers. It seems to me the Navy was deliberately and recklessly targeted for cuts and no serious strategic thought applied to maritime operations. We are a maritime country, where 95% of our trade is by surface shipping, yet we would be severely tested if some entity was to threaten to close the Red Sea or Straits of Hormuz. In NATO, our prime maritime responsibility is to be able to keep the SLOC open, how can we do that with just 19 Frigates and Destroyers? We are not Denmark or Holland – we are a country of 65 million who trades with the World – we need to be able to demonstrate Naval Force anywhere in the World if we are to be treated with any credibility by those who would be tempted to take advantage of, or disadvantage us. “it is upon the navy under the providence of god, that the safety, honour and welfare of this nation do chiefly attend” Charles II – Articles of War.
@APATS, something like the Spanish Alvero De Bazan, Nansens (light on silos perhaps) or even the Hobarts.
Might wait to see the FREMM AAW variant also
I would pitch them between Seaceptor armed T26 and Sampson / Aster T45
Not that I would suggest buying any of them but they suggest a way forward for perhaps a more multirole variant of the T26 down the line that would relieve stretch on T45s that presumably should be largely confined to CVF duties. As someone else upthread suggests I think, given our limited resources, our future ships will inevitable have to be more multi role
@DN
Gold-plated? When push comes to shove, which would you be prepared to serve on: a platform likely to become a flaming datum in any real fight (à la Snatch Land Rovers) or one designed from the start to achieve its mission, defeat any equally determined and well-trained enemy and live to fight again? You need an edge of some sort and technology is the best we have. 80% solutions don’t cut it.
Sometimes the blithe statements of those never likely to find themselves in such circumstances astounds me. Typhoons are expensive aircraft but I don’t begrudge their cost one iota if it means the real world difference between getting the job done and becoming a heap of smoking wreckage with the remains of the pilot inside and their mission unfulfilled.
@ MickP
Not what i asked and not what you suggested earlier. The Nansens are very light on silos fitted with 8 Mk41 but can take 16. So as a proper AAW platfomr you get 16 missiles. ESSM is not a missile for a proper AAW platform.
The last Alvero cost 850 million euros and has short legs, 2,500Nm less than a 45 at 18kts. the Hobarts are coming in at 31.3 Billion each.
@APATS – 31.3bn each?
The Ozzie’s have obviously outsourced procurement to DE&S.
@APATS – “Not what i asked and not what you suggested earlier.” – I’ve no idea what you are on about there. You asked me to suggest some and I did. If as you suggest none of them are up to scratch for our needs then fair enough.
Are 6 top class AAW assets enough for our needs? Tight would be how I view it. Equally T45 has very limited ASW so you wouldn’t want to send it alone to a hotspot without an ASW frigate or as part of a coalition.
We should really think long and hard about whether our DD/FF approach remains sensible or whether after a short run (6-8) of ASW T26s, we start on a variant with enhanced AAW – Sampson or equivalent on T26 ASW hull form ideal but compromises may have to be accepted – e.g. is 80% AAW/ 100% ASW better than 100% AAW / 50% ASW or 50% AAW / 100%ASW? I think everything is a game of percentages unless we have a bottomless pit of money. Or we insist on nothing less than 100%/100% and cut taskings.
Typo, should have read £1.3 Billion each for Hobarts.
@Mick P
You talked about units with AAW capabilities between t26 and T45 fielded by countries,I asked which of them provided genuine AAW capability? What is obvious is that a genuine air defender costs money.
Equally T45 has very limited ASW so you wouldn’t want to send it alone to a hotspot without an ASW frigate or as part of a coalition.”
I think this has been hugely over stated, you are never going to send a T45 to conduct passive ops but it can carry a Merlin and has a perfectly capable bow sonar.
@APATs, OK agreed on AAW. On your figures stepping down a rung from T45 capability either has too many performance compromises or costs no less. Twelve may have been pie in the sky but assuming two CVFs and a continued Gulf presecence the dropping of the last two was probably false economy. 8 AAW T45s plus 8 Top rate ASW T26s would have given us a balanced first rate escort fleet. Any extra T26 a bonus
Helpful comfort on T45 ASW though, thanks
@Dunservin
‘You need an edge of some sort and technology is the best we have’
Why are you assuming gold plated refers to technology only? The fact that we have to build everything is a form of gold plating that drives up costs not just technology.
‘flaming datum in any real fight (à la Snatch Land Rovers)’
Interesting you mention the ‘Snatch’ as it was chasing the gold plated uber FRES solution that forced us to use them in the first place.
Gold plating can kill just as easily as inferior can.
That’s a very good point DN
I think I might have a think about writing something about gold plating and 80% solutions.
Last time I looked I came down on the gold side
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/11/why-type-45-gold-plating-matters/
But as you say, the pursuit of that last 20% is costing us in other ways
No easy answers I think
@DN/TD
We have to be careful and not just assume that there is always an acceptable 80% solution that is actually effective and also cheaper.
As I pointed outhe to MickP when I asked him to name these AAW platforms he alluded to. Sometimes the required base line performance and cost of a platform can seem like gold plating, especially if the capability and threat is not fully understood.
In other cases there may be a case for a simpler cheaper solution.
It is very much a case by case analysis that is RequireD
APATS, agreed, a very complex and difficult situation that doesn’t have soundbite solutions but I think we can agree that equipment costs are rising and the cold hard facts of life mean in a fixed budget envelope you can then only afford fewer.
Nothing anyone can say will change that.
Hence 6 T45
I think it is trying to find the the tipping point that is the difficult part because simply put, it means accepting a greater element of risk if you want more or faster into service
And as Dunservin says, who want to be on a ship that has a greater risk
But, there comes a point where the collective risk is greater because you have fewer of everything, DN’s point I think
Who would want to make those decisions!
Mod personnel cost are also rising. So you maybe able to buy more 80% solutions you just won’t be able to man them. The UK simply cannot compete in a numbers game so they require tech to offer an advantage but then you also have to stop trying to do everything you used to do and limit the nice to have requirements. Or not only will it be an 80% equipment solution but an 80% pay solution too.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/625/media/images/48552000/gif/_48552416_mod_budget_464.gif
@TD – any piece should cover the other way too – what about 120% solutions?
If platforms are going to be scarce due mainly to manning then perhaps they should be not just gold plated but platinum plated!? Not in a ‘star wars style’ tech sense but in the case of ‘cheaper’ things that make the platform more effective like with hindsight for the fewer T45 more strike cells say – steel, air and strike cells are relatively cheap as NAB and others keep telling us. T26 probably is taking that way of thinking, very well armed compared to predecessors if it gets all the CGI kit. T45 in fairness has some growth potential for extra cells at major refit. All about making the absolute most of what we have. Yes a much smaller navy but ship for ship as good as (or in some cases better than) anyones
Zumwalt is often held up as “Gold Plated” but even that class has seen cost reductions: ZPY-3 not combined with ZPY-4 for example.
T45 doesn’t have the VLS cell quantity (or length) some would like, nor the noise reduction of T23/T26.
T26 is a “cruiser-role” Frigate, but is hardly a Cruiser. We could have gone for a Ticonderoga or even Long Beach (PWR3 powered?) nuclear style vessel to guarantee the warload and range we are after. Can you imagine T26 being a fleet of 13 CGN’s fuelled for 25 years with a minimum three score and ten VLS, noise reduction, three organic helicopters and something like a PAAMS/APAR/SMART-L EWC evolution? That could be considered Gold-Plated!
Back to the Age of Sail with the examples again: Some Second Rates used to be considered First Rates before the goal posts moved.
The “Original Six” of which USS Constitution was one, were highly capable Frigates which could overmatch any other when they showed up, but there were only six to start with and they were most definitely not Ships of the Line.
I think we’re trying too hard to create a Grand Unifying Definition (for want of a better term) to describe what we’re after and consequently struggling, which highlights the difficulties experienced by those actually responsible for (and hopefully accountable for… but another story) making the decisions.
Until we have the Will and the Resources to expand up to a comparative fraction of defence spending as the USA for our GDP (£120b p.a.?) I think we need to continue to look at each requirement on a case by case basis and aim for the “USS Constitution equivalent” in each case.
i.e. Enough to overmatch the expected opposition when we do show up, even if that means reducing the places and frequency that we can turn up. Complicated by the need for an absolute red-line threshold bare minimum drum beat to sustain skills.
Unsure if I’m explaining myself very well today. Not that I explain myself very well most days mind… :s
Clarification:
i.e. Enough to overmatch the expected opposition and hang around for long enough to do the job when we do show up, even if that means reducing the number of simultaneous places and the frequency that we can turn up. Complicated by the need for an absolute red-line threshold bare minimum drum beat to sustain skills.
‘drum beat to sustain skills.’
This is what I would call gold plating.
Did we really need to build Apache in the UK? could we not have asked Boeing to fit our engines and a folding rotor at a slightly higher cost than the normal unit price rather than adding a large cost for the pleasure of building our own?
We no longer have the capability to build nuclear reactors independently for commercial power generation yet we need to have the ability to build warships?
To make myself clear I would not necessarily class technology as gold plating, technology allows overmatch and advantage or a way of increasing the capabilities of older platforms.
I believe we gold plate the platforms in various ways not the technology. We tend to want to marry world beating technology with the best in it’s class platforms, and to top it all off we want to build the lot with no sniff of any export orders to help balance the books.
DN – there is a very important, expensive and time-consuming bit of gold plate that has nothing to do with technology or where equipment is made, and that is the insistence on UK-unique standards. Many years back when dealing with non-UK built subsystems I asked the MOD for their MIL-STD equivalence table, assuming over the decades of buying American materiel they would have appropriate MIL-STD acceptability criteria against their own Def Stan desires. No such cross reference existed, they said, and if a company wished to use MIL-STD qualification then it would be for the company to prove by detailed analyses (which would need DSTL blessing) that the MIL-STD compliance equalled or bettered the specified Def Stan requirement. Not surprisingly we ended up re-testing qualified military hardware against slightly different standards, revealing minor shortfalls that cost a lot to rectify. In that process we may have lost some of the MIL-STD compliance the stuff once had but that wasn’t important here in the UK. It would have been important though had the finished product been offered for export, as much of the western world uses MIL-STDs as the benchmark of military adequacy. Was the Def Stan compliant version better than the MIL-STD one? Would the MIL-STD qualified equipment be unusable or inadequate? Very doubtful.
Much of the gold plate as I see it is by Requirement; nothing to do with varieties of technology or location of manufacturer. In your example of Apache, had Boeing been tasked not only to fit RRTM engines but also Bowman and whatever other UK electronics/systems were required, then to requalify the completed weapon system to Def Stans throughout, I doubt it would have been much cheaper than the AW built aircraft.
Mark,
Better late then never…
In response to the price of the A330 and the extra cost of the NEO all I can say is that as far as I can see the A330-200 is one of the best value aircraft (not) available today – although the A380 looks good value too.
I presume the NEO options are worth it in the long run, so are worth it in the long run for military use too.
Yes, they are expensive, especially when I want a rotating bomb/missile/sonobuoy bay fitting, but you have to start somewhere. I suppose we could trial it on a couple of A319/A321s to keep the cost down.
@DN
Everything you write is true, but where do you want to stop ? Why don’t we just buy our SSN and SBBN’s from the US as well as our warships from French or German yards. The electronic equipment and missiles mostly comes from Euro JV’s these days any way, BAe can be taken over by LM or Boeing etc.
The end result, surely, is an economy with less capability of designing and building hi tech equipment, supports a lower R&D base, fewer manufacturing sector jobs. Worse still we are increasing imports, worsening the already awful balance of trade, transferring UK tax money to subsidise non-UK jobs…This all might be fine if we switched economic resources freed up from ceasing defence manufacturing, but we all know we won’t. We haven’t managed to do anything ourselves (ie British owned businesses) that way to any significant extent in the last 30 years.
Yes it may cost a premium to buy UK designed and built products, but there are added benefits to the UK tax payer you ignore (VAT, payroll and corporate profits tax back) even before you count the intangible benefits that the capability brings to the wider UK economy via the supply change, R&D.
Arguably what the UK lacks more than anything is sufficient industrial R&D to reap the benefits from what remains a world class (and European best) University system, but that also needs a more US like risk investment finance source and long term investment finance. Something we lack by comparison to the US or Germany.
Nick – clearly I would agree with your analyses. For the sakes of (many) fast bucks HMG has stopped investing in UK business, sold off every possible public service to the highest bidder, and borrowed cash from all-comers to fund vote-buying initiatives*. That covers all colours of politician over the past 35 years. Before then HMG seemed to be trying to do the right thing but were pretty inept (all colours), with UK society very definitely in post WW2 victory depression – unions and management so engaged in bitter hostilities that the country became a laughing stock. Presumably the politicians, as well as making money from the sale of the family silver, were trying to distance themselves from blame for the state of the nation while at the same time were hopeful the shareholders and new corporate management would fix everything for free. I can’t say if we would have been in a better state or worse had the Big Sell-Off not happened, but mass privatisation and the wide-open market where anybody from any country can buy out UK businesses has hollowed out the UK’s ability to look after itself. And of course other countries have not been so open, so its hardly a level playing field with our competitors.
*Initiative implies exciting new ideas full of promise. It does not imply soundbite flounce intended to hit headlines for one day (to improve vote share) and then have the promised funding quietly removed ready for the next Initiative.
@Nick
VAT, payroll and corporate profits tax back are cyclical if your money comes from the tax payer. If you do not create wealth through exports or sales outside of government then you are a service and of negligible monetary benefit to the tax payer.
R&D and design are important and should be aided by government when it is deemed necessary but not necessarily the manufacture.
Case in point would be the MARS tankers.
Simon
Yes the a330 is a successful aircraft. The neo options of various types are popular because by far the largest expense to an airline is their fuel bill so getting a 10% reduction over 15 years operating it makes sense as does sound and emission reductions while operating a known aircraft without the need to invest in significant new support or training.
The a330 in general is a lot of airframe for what you want it to do, significant floor space would be left unused other than to allow the formation pie eating team to expand there displays.
The biggest benefit to reducing defence costs would be for nato to agree design regulations that manufactures could design and certify too and all nations accepted that as certified design similar in civil aviation to the Easa air worthiness standards.
Mark,
So are you telling me there is no NATO-wide “Def Stan” or “MIL-STD” that Airbus can use?
Are the DoD / MoD specs continually changing and evolving? Can no one sit down and consolidate the greatest common denominator from all NATO defence departments?
If “no” then I see your point/problem.
Simon
Not for airworthiness as far as I’m aware. Airbus certified a400m to easa civil standard initially due to this issue. It’s been an issue on the NH-90 apparently as they’ve had to certify it to several different countries standards. I think there starting to looking at harmonising requirements. The US is different in that it’s similar to FAA regs only the military equivalent. If you don’t like the us standards you pay to allow the design to meet your standard which we have on things like chinook and apache. I can’t speak for ships or vehicles.
Mark,
That would explain quite a lot of wasted money in comparison to US procurement costs. I guess if we bought BlackHawk there would be the same problem?
Does anyone know if the Westland Sea King was built to different standards to the US Sikorsky?
Unfortunately in my eyes this makes even more reason to opt for common airframes for the jobs I am eluding to, regardless of the scale of the aircraft. It makes me think that building a multi-role military airliner would be sensible. AWACS, SIGINT, MPA and tanker in one… Perhaps the “bomber” version is too fantastical.
@Simon
Yes, the developments diverged with the initial license.
Regarding the all-purpose support airframe, I’m not sure that the bomber version (at least a permissive environment bomber) would necessarily be so implausible. It would suit airlines to be able to load baggage into aircraft without having to manhandle it into the hold – if you could put pre-loaded containers in through a suitably large aperture, it wouldn’t be too difficult to envisage a way of removing pre-loaded items from the aircraft during flight. You just need to make sure that your intended munition and the aperture are compatible.
If one were to get on board with something like this in the early stages:
http://www.airbus.com/innovation/future-by-airbus/concept-planes/the-airbus-concept-plane/
one could make sure that certain advantageous features get built in. If one were prepared to plan that far ahead.
@mr.fred
I am not sure you appreciate the additional design features and other implications (all adding cost, weight and complexity) of producing a bare bones civil airliner intended to be cleared at short notice for the carriage and delivery of military ordnance in accordance with Joint Air Delivery Test and Evaluation Unit (JADTEU formerly JATE), Defence Ordnance Safety Group (DOSG), Chief Inspector of Explosives (Ministry of Defence) (CIE(MOD)), Explosives Storage and Transport Committee (ESTC), etc., regulations.
Safety is the name of the game where the MOD is concerned and aircraft are rife with hazards where ordnance, particularly the fuzed variety, is involved. It’s difficult enough for an in-service military aircraft to gain certification when new types of air weapon are introduced, let alone a civil airliner.
If I have the wrong end of the stick, I’m sure someone will be along to correct me.
If we do go down the manned Maritime Patrol route and we chose either the existing P1 or P8 , both of which are capable of dispensing weapons then having our own version ( why not? we do it with everything else :-) we could have a bomb bay version , either cut out from the hull or an external blister to provide aerodynamic shielding for the weapons with doors in that. Neither the P1 or P8 is on the same scale as a A330 but could still carry a lot of say the SDB II which is a very versatile weapon and still packs a reasonable punch.
No need to modify them.
P-8 has four wing hard points, two centreline hard points and five in the existing bomb bay.
P-1 has a similar number.
Just need to fit pylons and rails to those hard points and integrate/qualify the weapons. 20,000lbs total, hard point limits available online.
At what’s looking to be £100m-£130m per aircraft, they’re not exactly a low cost bomb truck.
If you want to use them like this, may be better to think of them as either long range strike or, more likely, armed ISTAR.
In the spirit of doing more for less (and inspired by the picture on the Eurospike web page of a Blackhawk with a light cannon and eight eurospike), could we convert the eight spare Merlin MK1 into a gunship and save money? This seems cheaper to me than adding tie down points and flotation devices to our Apaches. Does anyone know if there has been a design study to turn the Merlin into a helicopter gunship. Presumably if they dropped the radar there is room for a 20mm cannon? It can’t be that hard to add an appropriate sight and integrated Hellfire and CRV-7 rocket pods on the Merlin. The expensive bit would be the avionics upgrade that the spare MK1′ s need anyway.
@Tubby
The platform is an AH-60 Battlehawk.
Dunservin,
I was thinking a little longer term for a conversion rather than taking a civilian airliner, rolling it into a hangar one day and have it come out the next as a bomber.
More like making sure that you can buy the basic airframe and convert it to military use without having to make structural alterations. Qualification of stores carriage and release clearance (no small task that)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtGBrIYyIVk
would also need to take place, but once you have a qualified installation kit you could maybe re-task you common airframe fleet as required.
@TOC
Cheers, it’s essentially an attack version of the Blackhawk right? Just seem to me that if we have a naval helicopter which already has a combat management system and weapon pylons that it is a no brainer to upgrade the spare cabs and turn them into an attack version. If BAE is no longer offering the GAMA turret then Nexter have a 20mm turret that they can intergrate and it shouldn’t be to hard to integrate hellfire and CRV-7 as both seem to me to be less draggy than Sting-Ray torpedo. I am just floating the idea because the evidence is that when we upgrade the Apache we need to make them as off the shelf as possible.
It seems all I have done is suggest we build Nimrod.
Unfortunately we’ve already proved that this nation can no longer build such things.
That adds neatly to the light fighter that I proposed last year which turned out (as Mark pointed out) to already exist in the form of Gripen.
Unfortunately we’ve proved that this nation has little vision for an export aircraft to challenge F16, F5 and to replace Hawk.
I think we’re going to have to admit we are simply a shadow of what we once were. Vickers Wellington LN514.
Where did it all go wrong? [crying into my cornflakes]
Well that’s not the case. MRA4 was built and worked, we just wouldn’t have ended up with enough.
We can modify green airframes as well as most, the question is do we want to pay for putting all the kit that was on MRA4 together in a green airframe when its already been done in P-8 and P-1?
Simon
” It seems all I have done is suggest we build Nimrod. Unfortunately we’ve already proved that this nation can no longer build such things.”
Oh I wouldn’t go that far. You never know what going on in some shed somewhere in blighty.
As for a fighter is there a market for a western f16,f5 replacement that isn’t already being offered?
Soggy, salty cornflakes are not nice ;-)
ToC,
Yes, if all we end up with is MPA.
Mark,
Nimrod in a shed? Some shed? :-)
I’m not advocating an F16 or F5 replacement now… we’ve missed the boat… again. My concern is that we seem incapable of doing any of this any more due to politics, health and safety, or simply too much chewing the fat.
Look at Britain’s engineering achievements and you’ll see it rather tapers off after about 1986. I can only think of Thrust SSC since.
Simon
This has been designed buy a company from the Yeovil area.
http://aviationweek.com/technology/facebook-s-uav-flies-builds-developments-solar-power
Some people do have rather big sheds
Oh, it started to go bad in 1965 and just about phinnished goin’ rong in 1992.
Simon, Mark – I have that shed (well my back bedroom, now office, anyway) – I have done fine designs, aimed to fit the Army’s needs. I am not wealthy enough to run all the FEA type analyses, create the full drawing set of all components, procure the parts, build the prototype, test it, modify it as necessary, document the changes, buy replacement parts, build a production ready version, and put it through formal trials. And yet that is apparently what MOD expects such that I might prove that I am ‘serious’ about dealing with them. MOD then has no interest in all those really clever ideas that take shape in sheds; they are only interested in what multinational corporations can offer.
Talking of Thrust SSC, the new Bloodhound project has taken years of hard work by Richard Nobel and his team and a lot of hard won investment and support to design and build one vehicle for one task. It was meant to run in summer 2012 (concerns the Olympics might have reduced their media access) but is only now coming together, possibly for a run later this year. It has cost overall a huge amount of money, little from HM Gov’t despite the fact one of the main aims of the project is to engage more youngsters to consider a career in engineering. It is a fine example of shed-engineering (I’m going to build one of these just because I want to and because its exciting) but shows to get to a product of vehicle scale takes a lot more effort and finance than most small enterprises can commit. Other nations invest in this arena – DARPA’s Grand Challenges, for example – but UK expects to get it all for free. It just doesn’t work that way.
@Chris – How much would it cost…I was planning to win the lottery later :-)
GNB
Dragons’ Den? It worked for Reggae Reggae Sauce but look what happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggae_Reggae_Sauce
Gloomy – an interesting question. It is currently assessed that effective engineering staff designers etc cost a business about £100k per year. To get to a sound design baseline for one vehicle might realistically use ten designers and fill a year, so to get to the point of knowing what to build is £1m and 12 months. Then bits to buy, and bits to commission to be made, probably best part of the second million. Then the assembly and basic test, the design staff plus fitters, in a workshop of adequate facilities, call that the third seven-figure sum. Then trials, bug fixes, redesign/retrofit – let’s call a relatively slick programme £4m and three years, or with realistic contingency £5m and 4 years. More people on the job can take some time out, but some tasks just can’t be made to go faster (AKA the nine men making a baby in one month syndrome).
If the prospective customer decides to ‘advise’ changes on a raft of different aspects of the design, then costs and timescales expand alarmingly.
While all that is well beyond my budget, compared to the cash being poured into FRES its petty cash. Remember GD were given a £500m contract (with I believe a £100m top-up a year later) to modify and trial seven ex-Austrian Army Ulan vehicles. That after all the studies and bids that went before to scope the design. You would have thought it would serve MOD well to use some of its budget to fund a few demonstrators?
Thanks for the offer then, Gloomy, but Lotto isn’t likely to cover the budget needed. Anyway I’m sure there are many worthy ways to spend spend spend in Gloomyville…
Dunservin – HMG controls the export of all I do even though they’ve done nothing to help; public broadcasting is a no-no. For that matter what investor in their right mind would fund a project where the customer is so unlikely to commit? Its only the likes of Richard Branson who might sink a few million in the project because he could afford to lose the lot, or big corporations who would of course be buying the designs as part of the funding agreement.
Oh and in the earlier post I should have written ‘Richard Noble’ not ‘Richard Nobel’ – sorry Richard…
Chris.
You have given the reason why a number of companies are reluctant to invest their own money in defence ideas that maybe of use to mod or have the potiential for export “HMG controls the export of all I do even though they’ve done nothing to help”. As someone famous said the most terrifying words you can here is I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
There is things similar but perhaps not quite as big as what simon would like that go on in this country they just tend to be for foreign buyers and never see the public light of day due to security requirements.
Mark – by ‘help’ I meant either a level of funding (stop laughing at the back!), or nothing more difficult than a statement of firm interest which would open pathways to other forms of investment. I can crack on with the technical stuff without customer help.
@Chris…Gloomyville grew by rolling the armour plate for Dreadnoughts, and already does a fair amount of work on high tech engineering and advanced materials, and is just over the hill from the home of Graphene; cant think of many better uses for my winnings than rebuilding an arms industry as part of the “Northern Powerhouse”…
…I’ll get some lucky dips the next the Euro-millions involve serious money! :-)
GNB
@Chris, GNB
Let’s say GNB’s numbers do come up and the newly formed Gloomy Investments Ltd. offers to bankroll a four year contingent demonstrator vehicle, what vehicle would you select to approach potential customers with?
Hmmm. There’s a question TOC. I think of the types so far considered it would be a flip of the coin between a Scimitar sized recce vehicle (with CTA, obviously), or a Gucci 8×8 probably in APC form. Why, what did you want?
Interested in thoughts as to what the UK needed, what were we lacking.
That and what could be exportable for a UK company. Would you pick the same vehicle for the Eastern Europeans if the UK were to underwrite financing for them as well, for example?
To be truthful I haven’t considered the needs of the EU/wider Europe, as there are many manufacturers across Europe that are both capable and well supported by their Governments – surely they would have head starts and access to better offset deals than I could manage(!)
I have had an expression of interest from another NATO country for one of the designs, as yet no more than that. Returning to your question though, the 8×8 is very adaptable so it would probably be the best option.
As for the gaps that are opening in the UK fleet, I have thought for a very long time that the specific advantages of CVR(T)/FV430 (as in small as normal road traffic and moderately light and with really low ground pressure) will be missed once Scout-SV has replaced them. Obviously there is an outstanding requirement for FRES-UV AKA UVW which at a stretch the 8×8 might fulfil. But there are many other roles in the light to medium weight armour domain that are possible; some the UK had in times past, some would be first generation capabilities, and in my collection of designs I have covered just a few of these.
Mr.Fred Consultants would suggest that if exports are desirable, the widest possible range of equipment fits should be accounted for. From 3rd generation FLIR to COTS low-light cameras and direct vision. CTA (if you must) to cannon in various 30mm calibre or even 25 and 20mm. All the shiny electronics to bare hulls. RWS to pintel mounts. That way the customer can have what they can want (or can afford).
mr.fred – for UK consideration the rule was ‘fit 40CTA’ – not sure if that position stands. It took quite a lot of rummaging in public domain data and following that a lot of reverse engineering to create a reasonable model of the assembly. Fortunately there is a good deal of explanatory data with diagrams and photos for this particular product. I looked for similar levels of data for the likes of Bushmaster/Mk44 but found little. So while I am confident that the installation of the CTA would be workable I wouldn’t be able to reach the same certainty with other types.
Creating new variants takes time. Some are focused on single roles, some are more generic and adaptable. I think its a fair assumption I could never illustrate all possible options for all customers anywhere in the world, but I think the selection thus far created would give a reasonable impression of the variant possibilities. When I get an office full of designers all grafting away then maybe a fuller portfolio along the lines you outline might result.
By the way, I like simplicity. I think a military vehicle should be as far as is possible repairable by the personnel that use it, with no more than basic tools, wire, gaffa tape and a bit of logical thought. As such I have retained battery-switch-load electricals wherever I could – I dislike ECUs being used unnecessarily. When bullets are flying and life’s a bit fraught I want the crew to be able to keep the thing moving; that’s no place to have a big blue screen of death informing you “This vehicle has shut down to protect the ECUs from damage. Please call your local service depot who will be happy to arrange a time and place for diagnosis and repair. Thank you.”
…I like simplicity. I think a military vehicle should be as far as is possible repairable by the personnel that use it, with no more than basic tools, wire, gaffa tape and a bit of logical thought. As such I have retained battery-switch-load electricals wherever I could…
Cor, a born Brit with common sense.
You won’t get far like that :-(
http://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/automatic-cannons-chain-guns/
?
But in any case, I was thinking about the rise of Gloomy Investments Ltd. and making sure that there was export potential. In such a situation, getting the details necessary straight from the supplier would be fairly easy, I would have thought.
Mr Fred,
It’s interesting that you should immediately suggest an adaptable hull. The trouble is that by not actually having a final brief you end up with a floating specification and no actual target design.
To take it to the nth degree it is very easy to say “well, let’s just make sure it can carry a TEU, that will surely make sure it will cover all bases” – you then end up with something pretty massive and expensive.
So, although if you look above I suggested that the only way to increase efficiencies is to build more multi-role units I also acknowledge that there is the flip-side to the coin in that the design process can become next-to-impossible with too vague a requirement.
What you suggested is absolutely utterly reasonable, but seems to demonstrate just how easy it is to lose sight of the design brief, which I’m sure Chris has written.
I think FRES and T26 are good examples of how not to define a project/requirement.
Simon – I appreciate the compliment thanks. Its a function of experience – I own a 60s car that has minimal electronic content, and with the exception of a few dodgy switch contacts and the odd broken wire its still going as well as ever. For the past couple of weeks I’ve had a courtesy car while the daily driver is in dock, this being a 2001 car from a well respected manufacturer, and while the body has little sign of rust and the mechanics seem fit & healthy, the dashboard is festooned with random ECU warnings that come & go with the changing weather. The thing also has a habit of deciding to lock the doors and setting the alarm; sometimes a battle of wits between me plipping ‘unlock’ and the car instantly relocking the car and setting the alarm off. Fortunately once the engine is running while the door locks fire at random times, the alarm and immobiliser are not engaged. This from a car of modest mileage and just 15 years old. What on earth will military vehicles of 50 or 60 years in service be like? What chance their ageing ECUs will operate correctly? What chance there will be replacements available for the duff units? There is a significant possibility the likes of Scout-SV will be pensioned off long before they are worn out just because the electronics has gone flaky and is no longer supportable.
I’d like my designs to be a bit more durable and robust, thanks.
Simon,
Scope creep is certainly a danger. I was thinking that you don’t design out the simpler option. If you design a mounting point for a RWS, also make sure the top hatches are suitable for mounting a pintel weapon on.
If you mount a whizzy battle management system, make sure that you don’t have to have it to see out. If you fit a super high-resolution electro optic, make sure you can also mount a cheaper one.
If you mount a costly, small user-base cannon with a single ammunition source, make sure you can mount one that is more commonly available too.
mr.fred – thanks for the links but they are about as deep as I found before – things like the right mantlet pivot location or the specific feed arrangements are equally necessary. As for dealing with suppliers, until there is a defined customer and a requirement few weapon makers are willing to hand over technical detail. Funny, that…
Simon – I really don’t like common vehicle multi-role designs. I think a design focused on a primary task ends up far more effective. I do however like commonality of subsystems and components, such that new focused-role vehicles can be quickly designed with a high degree of confidence in their performance. To me, the armoured hull is just the box the vehicle sits in; if a different shaped box is needed to suit a different role then crack on. Clearly there are consequences of this approach, the obvious one being the new shape hull would need its protection level validating. But I think that extra effort in design is more than offset by the operational advantages. As you rightly say, if the one vehicle is to be an APC and a turreted fighting vehicle and a cargo lugger and a masted sensor platform and a comms node then the thing will be the size of an artic truck and as big a target as the enemy could ever wish for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5hrNoR4kHM
?
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday14029baker.pdf
?
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday14027hart.pdf
?
http://www.dtmimage.com/thumbnail/2009/20090813_002/20090813_002_006L.jpg
?
http://www.fortbenningphotos.com/Maneuver-Center/Capabilities-Development-Integ/2014-09-10-XM18-Live-Fire/i-mTdcjCM
?
mr.fred – these I hadn’t found. Thanks! The Hart presentation was interesting in particular; the very ‘CTA’ lateral magazines on the mantlet axis I hadn’t seen before. More rummaging required I think.
Chris,
As far as I can tell, that’s the layout for the Kongsberg MC RWS.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkAKimPerkins.pdf
There’s quite a lot of interesting stuff in the NDIA conferences
Bit of a shame the Bushmaster showers links out like confetti, but at least the cartridge ejection is outdoors. Also a bit of a shame that for the moment all this potential design work would be a bit pointless – nugatory as my old employers would have said. While there’s no sniff of UK interest nor any option for general broadcast adverts (export controls and all that) the designs, good as they may be, might well fade into obscurity. Even crowdsourced funds wouldn’t be possible as the concepts couldn’t be presented to prospective enthusiasts. I suppose its a sign of the times that the best and most likely source of development cash for what might be a key asset of the future British Army might well be, as Gloomy proposed, to wait for the Lotto to come up. Just a little different from the situation 50 years back.
Or maybe not? This from Wiki’s page on Christopher Cockerell:
Cockerell had found it impossible to interest the private sector in developing his idea, as both the aircraft and the shipbuilding industries saw it as lying outside their core business. He therefore approached the British Government with a view to interesting them in possible defence applications and put the idea of the hovercraft on the governments secret list. Being on the secret list stopped Christopher from making his design public. The leaders of the defence groups were not interested in providing funding. It remained classified until 1958 when, upon news of similar developments on the continent, it was declassified, and Cockerell was introduced to the NRDC (National Research Development Corporation). In the autumn of 1958, the NRDC placed an order with Saunders-Roe for the first full-scale hovercraft.
Clearly what we need is a Defence version of NRDC.
You only get links out of a chain gun if you put links in. The Kongsberg setup is linkless.
As for funding; other than the lottery, you’d have to find a way of getting people on board. That could be the big players in the defence industry, or people within the Army or MoD.
I’m not sure how a bunch of sketches are going to accomplish that, no matter how sensible the concepts. Especially where there is little engineering backup – no structural assessment? How can you predict reliability or survivability? Have you got the concept for how it’s going to be built? if not, how can you be confident of the mass and, by extension, the performance?
mr.fred – agreed its not easy. In 5 years I have gone past engineering justification, component selection and sketches; several of the concepts are in CAD, although I accept these are really packaging exercises not blueprints. For survivability (as in levels of protection) I have used data from the maker of S-Glass for thickness of armour for the STANAG level I chose to provide – I favour resin/fibre composites – and have assigned a greater areal density to it than the manufacturer suggests, giving me structure weights that are pessimistic by a considerable margin. For reliability I have put in a far greater level of redundancy than you’d find in pretty well any vehicle. I have a plan for the build, but at the moment its just that. You are correct there would be a large amount of detail stress analyses to be performed on the mechanical components, much work required on the electrics and steering (wheeled variants) and suspension, but the same sort of tasks apply to any new vehicle design. I set mass targets early on and used the CAD calculated mass (or published mass for bought items) to build up totals – including the pessimistically heavy hulls the calculated GVW sits somewhere between 5% & 10% over target for each one assessed – bearing in mind these are first pass designs with no tough weight reduction work yet done, they are probably where they should be. Performance was calculated at target mass and is better than the published figures of any other AFV. Although there may be some sharp performers not yet in the public domain; how would I know?
In my opinion this makes the concepts more than sketches; a select few have had the opportunity to review the work and so far each review has been positive. I am of course biased, but I think they are pretty good. And some.
@ Chris,
One of the drives for the open-source software movement, was that the engineers noticed that the IP they invented was getting owned by the lawyers and corporate logo, and not shared with themselves.
And they can’t get a job elsewhere, because their skills and reputation are tied to the IP, and the IP is exclusive to their current employer.
So by open sourcing their work, they create interest amongst many potential employers, all of whom can produce a product based on that IP, and who would be best to work on that project, and its successors? Well obviously, the person – the engineer – who produced the IP in the first place.
Now, I don’t know the details of HMG classification, but I don’t see how they could classify a document prior to you showing it to them? So if you came up with a new design, and immediately published it to the world to see, that would attract interest from a lot of companies, and some of them would be very interested in hiring you to (a) develop it and (b) to develop similar ideas in future. Probably South Korea and Israel, since the UK and US decision makers have no interest in the quality of military designs.
Structures is my thing, so I get worried about a lack of consideration for that aspect of design. I know a bit about composites, which is primarily that they are a sod to work with compared to metals and it only gets worse as they get thicker.
mr.fred – I deliberately left the structure thick and undetailed. There are companies (Permali for instance) that have the nous and capability to create a successful design given enough volume to work within, and I would be entirely happy for such companies to own that part of the design. Specialists are valuable and should be used to the best of their skills, in my opinion. The issue no doubt is not how to make a thick and heavy structure reach a given protection level, but how to minimise structural weight while maintaining protection and durability. This last point is important – I have gained the impression resin/fibre composites (particularly the really rigid ones like carbon fibre) have a limited fatigue life and some it seems react badly after impacts. Hence the need for experts.
Mike W – strange as it may sound, because of the subject matter, HMG have control of everything I do (with regards to export) even if they have no knowledge of it. Its very much softer than the ITAR restrictions faced by US businesses, but the controls exist, the individual or company is expected to abide by them, and may be dealt with severely if the rules are broken – even if the transgression is discovered well after the event. The responsibility is firmly on the originator, not the regulatory or constabulary authorities. Were I to publish and be damned, damned I would be…
Fostering a cricket team sounds like a good idea to me. The Dutch play cricket, so why not the Russians ? There are certainly enough of them, surely they could make up a team. We could play test matches with them , but we definitely would not want to be playing for “The Ashes”