'Defence is the first duty of government, even if there are no votes in it'

07 June 2012

In an edited version of his foreword to the forthcoming edition of the Defence Management Journal, former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West argues that the UK's submarine and surface fleets could be expanded for relatively little extra cost

The most significant decision regarding the further adjustments to the defence programme to remove the so-called 'black hole' related to which A/C type would embark on the new carriers. It seems that the major factor in the decision was cost, and somewhat strange is that Bernard Gray's £5bn slush fund isn't to be used to resolve the problem.

There is no doubt that the JSF Programme is crucially important to the UK aviation industry, and decisions relating to it and other procurement plans may reignite the debate about ordering off-the-shelf or developing systems in the UK.

Such decisions are clouded in controversy, claim, counter claim, lack of empirical evidence and downright lies. For example, if a recent study for RUSI suggesting that 34 per cent of the cost of defence equipment sourced and manufactured in the UK returns to the Exchequer is correct, then it would suggest that any foreign off-the-shelf equipment needs to be at least one-third cheaper before it even compares on purely cost grounds. How do ministers weight the preservation of hi-tech skills in the UK workforce and their inevitable benefits to the overall economy?

Have we really identified the essential capabilities we as a nation need to ensure the ability to modify and upgrade equipment over time without another nation's approval?

In the final analysis, sovereign nations take action in their own perceived national interest, even if it adversely affects a friendly nation.

On a different tack, how do the MoD and NSC calculate capability, cost and value for money? Our nation is planning to have an SSN force of seven boats, whereas it is quite clear commitments have shown we need a minimum of eight. The stretching of the building drumbeat for the Astute has added £800m to the cost of the programme for seven boats. To have had eight boats at the original drumbeat would mean an eighth boat could be built for effectively £200m extra.

Clearly, there are issues of running costs, but have we really made an assessment of the massive capability enhancement possible for limited extra outlay? Similarly, are we really going to pay for idle shipyards via the TOBA agreement when we could be building warships for a derisory extra cost to the Exchequer? I would have proposed an extra three T45 destroyers at £300m each, but understand BAE Systems has destroyed the jigs. Can this be true?

Of course, the fundamental problem is that we are spending too small a slice of our diminished national wealth on defence. Clever use of cyberspace will not change that. There is considerable backbench support in the Lords and Commons for an increase in defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP, but the front benches see no votes in such a move.

I believe any government has a duty to the nation when it comes to defence and security –more than in any other area –to take the right action, even if there are no votes in it.

HAVE YOUR SAY

07 June 2012

What rubbish this man talks, a T45 destroyer costing £300m,an Astute submarine costing £200m. Lets see the arthmertic to back this up....The question of pay back through tax, what about the question of discounting the cost of these valuable resources being employed on real growth export projects rather than projects which offer nothing except over priced under performing military equipment with zero export potential. The MOD budget is not a profit and job creation scheme for inefficient UK industry. Those days are over and been for decade or so.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

07 June 2012

I agree with West (not sure about the maths though) but we need CONSISTENCY AND CONSENSUS in defence policy and vision if we are to avoid the travesty of the chopping and changing we've witnessed over the last listless decade.

The question is who, as Britain, do we want to be? The makers of our destiny or the importers of other people's products to defend the financial interests of other country's companies based here?

Self belief attracts orders, surrender earns contempt; the nonsense argument about subsidising inefficient British industry is as short-sighted as it is deluded. Since the 1980s we have paid the social and economic price EVERY DAY for government policies based on a one-sided laissez faire approach. How much more industry do we want to see in foreign hands and asset-stripped before we finally wake up and realise that we have nothing and are nothing? Britannia awake!
Michael - Hertfordshire

07 June 2012

How many export orders for major prestige weapon systems Challenger 2 battle tank, AS90 selfpropelled gun, Type 23 frigate, T45 destroyers,ASRAAM missiles, Starstreak SAM and so on. Tens of billions of pounds have been poured into the UK defence industry and have not secured any economic return. Other countries seem prefer German, French, Spanish anything but British equipment with a few notable exceptions like the Hawk trainer. Our arms industry has lost touch with what the world defence market requires and can afford, so now it is the sorry state that it has one major customer the UK MOD. (I will ignore the Saudi/BAE systems contracts for legal reasons). From now on we must develop affordable and capable weapon systems for the world market and the UK armed forces will have to accept it and not go off on some tangent like the T45 programme which made no business or military sense.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

07 June 2012

@ Kingdom of Fife: There is a fundamental bond between government decisions and what makes success internationally. I am convinced the reason these products have not been exported (or otherwise)are political. However, the implication of your argument is that foreign powers somehow have majesterial success with everything they do. Which they don't; after all, if the Typhoon had been successful in India, the boot would be on the other foot now with Rafale and in no uncertain terms. France makes no bones about what it does to support its "efficient" industry (even exporting helicopter carriers to the Russians) so we face a question of what we are here to do in terms of defence manufacture.

It's one thing to say that we should make things that the world wants but if we don't want them ourselves then we won't have a hope of selling them - Rover cars is a classic case in point. Which therefore, as I have argued before, takes us back to the industry designing to the government's needs (and its export restrictions). The T45 nonsense was a result of governmental meddling and indecision (12 ships reduced to 6) and don't forget that we nearly lost all our submarine skills thanks to more meddling and indecision. We could always buy from America of course...

Inefficiency is the product of the appalling decision-making processes in the UK rather than somehow the products being not up to scratch. Challenger 2 has been sold to Oman of course and I believe 3 Type 23s now serve with the Chilean navy (at a budget second hand price of course). But one wonders whether (a) with government support we could sell more ships upfront rather than second hand (government propping up inefficient industry?)and (b) whether the we'd be acused of selling to dodgy regimes.

Words like "inefficiency" are happily banded around as a sound bite to disguise more fundamental problems with our political and visionary processes. For example, BAE doesn't make exportable diesel-electric submarines because the UK doesn't want them and the development risks are huge; result: Germany gets the orders (not because they are more "efficient" but because they build to a volume market defined by their own government (non-nuclear) needs which are then exportable).

I would describe the dole queue as the most horrendous and inefficient way of shaping industrial skill, people's futures and people's lives. And let's not forget that it was government and EU policy - not lack of orders - that closed NESL back in the 1980s, Europe's (yes, that's right, Europe's) most efficient shipyard.
Michael - Hertfordshire

07 June 2012

The key piece that hits me in the eye is the RUSI figure "suggesting 34 per cent of the cost of defence equipment sourced and manufactured in the UK returns to the Exchequer". All well and good if we (they) could design and manufacture equipment that fits our needs and would achieve exports too. Wouldn't it be nice if the latest (apparent) design of the Type 26 GCS could achieve the same success as the Spanish F100!!!!
Why is Mantis now being heavily promoted as a French design (with a different name) in the international market place??
Government must promote and help (re)build our Defence industry. Perhaps the Chiefs of Staff (Erstwhile Col. Blimps?) could help by not only looking at what we/they require but how the requirement would easily fit or modify to a.n. others requirements.
Has Ocelot/Foxhound achieved any exports? Will the CVRT replacement achieve any exports? I say again ... lets hope GCS is the turning point!
Norman - UK

07 June 2012

Our major defence products fail to achieve exports for political reasons? I know that is not the case having been involved in the political games that is the arms trade. The UK Government does whatever it "can" to ensure exports to friendly and not so friendly nations.

The Challenger 2, we say its the best tank in the world - well Oman bought 30 odd. Now compare that with the export success of the Leopard 2, not good reading for the UK taxpayer.

Selling ex RN ships for next to nothing is not a viable way forward, when we are already short of frigates.

The RN doesnt want diesel submarines which is reasonable even the effectiveness of nuclear subs. Neither does the French Navy but French shipyards seem to export many diesel submarines to eager customers.

The T45 fiasco and reduction to 6 platforms, was because British shipyards couldnt produce the 12 within the specified budget. Whose to blame? BAE and the RN mostly.

Our defence industry with the able assitance of politicans and cheifs of staff has over the past decades to produce a ramshackle collections of white elephants on the ground, in the air and on the sea that are simply fail the basic two tests any prospective customer wants to pass. Affordability and capability, most of our major defence projects cant do the job and they cost too much.

So nothing magical about defence exports, just a matter of designing and building the right equipment at the right price. Something we have singley failed to do over a number of decades. At the end of the day the customer is always right, the trouble is we expend a lot of effort telling him why he is wrong and wonder why we lose defence contracts to our rivals.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

07 June 2012

An example I was involved in a defence deal in the 1980's. The middle eastern country wanted the equipment in a sand colour (seemed a reasonable request given the terrain it was going to be used in). The UK manufacturer replied in saying we only supply in British Army green, like it or lump it. A sad example of our inability to respond to customer, nothing has changed over the past 30 years in fact its got worse.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

07 June 2012

Sorry, don't have any faith in the judgement of Lord West. He allowed the RN to be decimated on the promise of CVF and has shown himself to be a grandstanding Labour publicist.
Murgatroyd - West Yorkshire

07 June 2012

Defence has wallowed in so much money over the years that they have a mindset which has led to waste and mismanagement of £tens of billions. Over and over again.

Thats the "fundamental problem". And the reason that despite vast spending the UK gets so relatively little for it. Not having too little money - but having too much.
Jeremy - Newcastle

07 June 2012

Its gone the other way now everything is sand coloured strangley
templar - oman

07 June 2012

@GB Kingdom of Fife. I think you touch on something profound here: the declining influence of the military and the increasing involvement of a decadent political class with limited life experience. I feel convinced that this is the heart of the problem.

Penny pinching at the top but the desire for still "the best" will always result in equipment which is unaffordable if desirable - we only end up with 6 instead of 12; great equipment but strategically inefficient and, of course, too expensive to be exportable. I am beginning to despair of the Britain we live in today. We may end up with two magnificent aircraft carriers but with no fleet to sail with them and insufficient destroyers to protect them...

I believe that if we had a knowledgeable, visionary and committed government (passed on irrespective of political dogma) we would not be experiencing the types of problems we are experiencing today with procurement. Our political class today lacks people in key positions who have ever had to fight in a tank, or on a frigate under fire, or on the rolling deck of an aircraft carrier trying to catch the wind. This means that the people who make strategic decisions rely on MBAs and PPEs to inform their strategic vision ("I'll do the talking , you do the fighting"). This is insufficient and will ultimately relegate Britain to a "what might have been" nation.

The point you raise about the tanks and colour of paint is, of course, simply outrageous. I don't call it inefficiency though, I call it arrogance which, in business, is inexcusable and is rightly punished by a lack of orders. Whoever responded to a customer in this way should have been sacked; no doubt they were promoted instead.
Michael - Hertfordshire

08 June 2012

Michael, havent got a problem with anything in your final post in fact I agree with most of it. With regard to the green coloured equipment (in todays terminology it was battlefield surveillance target acquistion kit). The French won the bulk of the order, although we did manage to win a small order. When the equipment duly arrived in country, the French kit supplied was a lovely sand colour while the UK equipment was British Army dark green. I always found the French very committed to selling the defence equipment, while in the UK it was a case of do we have too it mucks up our schedules for our MOD cost plus contracts? (I include manufacturers, military cheifs and the MOD). Now all of a sudden we realise the UK MOD budget cannot sustain our declining defence industry, we decide Johnny Foreigner will now be allowed to buy British - Fat Chance its to late.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

09 June 2012

Defence has wallowed in so much money over the years that they have a mindset which has led to waste and mismanagement of £tens of billions. Over and over again.

Thats the "fundamental problem". And the reason that despite vast spending the UK gets so relatively little for it. Not having too little money - but having too much.
Jeremy - Newcastle

Have to say I disagree with this Jeremy. The primary reason defence is such a mess is the change of government every 4 years. Even if the party in power stays the same the policy inevitably changes every 4 years.

When compared to Japan who have had a global strategy in place since 1950 which has survived impact with all the events and is now coming to fruitition in a very powerful and real way (4 flat tops and over 30 destroyers... 4 of which are ABM capable) we are complete amatuers in long standing policy.

This has been true since before Nelsons time and it is a considerable weakness in the way our government functions.

Defence can never really plan in a coherent matter because it never has longer than 4 years to make a difference. This means it needs more money than some countries to achieve the same effect.

There are of course other issues, several other issues and they contribute greatly to this problem. The end result is that solving the "defence issue" can never really come down to one issue. You cannot find one person to blame.

Of course the British PLC with their need for the welfare state and total detachment from any form of responsibility will no doubt seek to find one person to blame... Inevitably it will be the government, or the forces, or the treasury... Despite the fact all those people work on behalf of their wishes and if the UK PLC got involved we may have more accountability, more common sense and more long term strategy based on what society want.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

09 June 2012

For once I agree with Lord West,
His costings probably do not include Government Furnished Equipment though.

I do not believe the Government on the timings for the carrier conversions either, nor do the amount of alterations to allow this to happen. I've seen figures quoted for less than 30 compartments needed to be altered for the catapults not the 90+ HMG quote. As for the rolling landing with the F35B thats a disaster waiting to happen.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

16 June 2012

maybe Lord West should practice what he preaches as he wasn't shouting from the roof tops when he became a labour minister
michael - manchester

22 June 2012

GB - Kingdom of Fife

1.Challenger 2 v Leopard 2, is an interesting one as they are not quite the same generation, most of the Leopard 2's new build export orders were placed when we had the far inferior Challenger 1. As for the Challenger 2, we did handicap ourselves by our own unique take on tank design (especially with the Main Armament), most modern tanks now use a Smooth Bore gun, wheras the British Army prefers a rifled barrel as it allow the vehicle to fire a far wider range of ammunition and in the indirect fire role over a far greater distance.

The CR2 (in my opinion)is a superb Battle tank and has some fantastic features on it, I have been a troop leader in a CR-2 equipped Regiment and think the Armour protection is second to none (though would accept an argument that the Merkava 3 might give it competition in this area).

The areas we fall down on in the export market is the L30 120mm Main Armament (Rifled), the awful 7.62mm chain gun (Coax), the Rolls Royce Engine (however this is replaced by the Leopard 2's MTU engine in the export vehicle) and the total lack of independant Thermal sights for the commander, which mean the Tank is essentially a Challenger 1 in the dark and cannot use its impressive Target Management system at night.
Rob - Telford