Ainsworth: 'Tough choices lie ahead'
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The £36bn defence budget looks likely to be overhauled as the government attempts to get to grips with the need to prioritises resources on Afghanistan.
While Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said Trident would stay, he insisted that soldiers in Afghanistan would be the "principal commitment for as long as it takes".
However, he added: "We cannot exclude major shifts in the way that we use our defence spending to refocus our priorities. There will be tough choices ahead. We will need to be better at spending the money we have and more rigorous in prioritising what we spend it on."
On Trident, he said: "There is no intention on this government's part of moving our position on Trident. Of course, if we can provide that at sea deterrent with three submarines rather than four submarines, and therefore cut the cost, we will look to do that."
Ainsworth also told an audience at Kings College London that there was little public appetite for higher defence spending.
"Military people say to me all the time, we need a bigger defence budget. That is not the pressure MPs of all parties get from their constituencies," he said. "In my constituency, I do not get demands for a higher defence budget. Quite the reverse. We need to live in the real world, where the British public are."
Liberal Democrat shadow defence secretary Nick Harvey said: "It seems Bob Ainsworth has finally realised that our defence spending plans bear little relation to our current priorities. But he is still not acting with nearly enough urgency. It is painfully obvious that when our frontline troops are desperately short of helicopters and airlift, we should not be pushing ahead with the costly, Cold War irrelevances of Trident and Eurofighter. His call for a 'national debate' rings hollow coming from a government which has time and again failed to listen to the needs of our troops and the views of the British people."
HAVE YOUR SAY
Bob Ainsworth says the MoD needs to be better at sending the money. We all know how. Ainsworth to resign. Sack the top level of civil servants at the MoD, and start from fresh
JOHN - IOM
Dear Editor,
Would it be worth investigating the link between the latest missile project for the lynx helicopter and the near closure of a missile range in Scotland only saved at last minute?
Are the two linked? If so, why are we wasting money developing a missile when we could buy 'off the shelf' alternatives from the USA at a far cheaper cost?
Seems strange?
John - UK
John: Further to your post funnily enough I already raised this question over the 'new' ASM.
There is little threat from any major surface targets to warrant a brand new missile system whilst Harpoon works perfectly well. Sea Skua is also still a fab piece of kit and yet we seem to require the need for the F-22 of the missile world.
My off the shelf idea is to buy Harpoon if they really need an ASM or even upgrade Sea Skua. For close in work then simply use Brimstone.
Really a waste of cash!
James - GB
I would not call Trident and Typhoon irrelevances. To properly defend this nation you need a balanced armed forces and that means spending money at the expense of other luxuries and follies, for example, ID cards.
If cuts need to be made then they should come from civil service jobs not ships and aircraft.
By all means buy cheaper equipment, off the self, at a fixed contract price, with support built in and with penalties for late delivery. That would make sense. But as common sense seems not to be a pre-requisite in the halls of government, it looks like were destined to have a navy consisting of a converted regents park pedalo and a home guard on push bikes. How on earth do these people get elected?
tim dainton - romsey