- Defence Policy
- Equipment and Support
- Modernising Defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land Vehicles
- Security
- HR and Training
- Defence Estates
News updates
Email
Print
Digg
reddit
StumbleUpon
Facebook
DeliciousGreen Paper to 'stimulate debate'
Wednesday, February 03, 2010The Ministry of Defence has launched a green paper on issues to be considered during the next Strategic Defence Review (SDR).
'Adaptability and Partnership: Issues for the Strategic Defence Review' makes the case for more flexible cooperative structures within the military, and closer international collaborations.
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said: "There is no more important function for Government than defence. This green paper will stimulate debate about the future of Britain's defence ahead of a Strategic Defence Review in the next Parliament.
"Afghanistan is the top priority today but we must also ensure that our Armed Forces are ready to confront the challenges of tomorrow. The current and emerging threats we face are characterised by uncertainty and will require a more flexible response from an adaptable Armed Forces."
The green paper has been in production for six months following consultation with members of the Defence Advisory Forum, including opposition politicians, former military personnel and academics.
The Green Paper says the SDR must answer key questions on UK defence, including:
• What contribution should the Armed Forces make in ensuring security within the UK?
• How could we more effectively employ the Armed Forces in support of wider efforts to prevent conflict and strengthen international stability?
• Do our current international defence and security relationships require rebalancing in the longer term?
• Should we integrate our forces with those of key allies and partners?
The green paper concludes that the armed forces must become more adaptable and able to take on proactive expeditionary operations such as Operation Herrick in Afghanistan in future.
The paper also calls for closer relationships between the Britain and strategic allies in Europe and the US, and more cooperation between defence, diplomatic and development efforts.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of the Defence Staff, said he looked forward to a "vigorous and widespread debate" on the green paper in coming months.
The MoD also published a 'Strategy for Acquisition Reform', which sets out "steps to improve governance, risk management, transparency and cost control in order to deliver an efficient, well managed and high quality equipment programme for the future". The report is partly in response to the Gray report, which delivered a damning verdict on the MoD's "overheated" equipment programme last year.
Lord Drayson, Minister for Strategic Defence Acquisition Reform, said: "It is vital that defence acquisition is as efficient as possible. This is a strategy for major reform. At its centre is a radical plan to increase the transparency of our equipment plan, to help ensure it can be kept affordable and achievable. By managing our plans and projects, better and strengthening our relationship with industry, we will improve the delivery of the battle-winning equipment that our Armed Forces deserve."
The Green Paper can be downloaded here
HAVE YOUR SAY
Given the French seem to have transferred a considerable amount of military technology to third parties. Much of which has been built upon and in the case of a helicopter used in naval warfare has now been largely reverse engineered. Believe the two carriers should be brought up to French spec. Also if closer ties are made with France, if Britain’s navy should face being threatened in the future with technology supplied by the French. Then I think Britain should handle admin/negotiations and the French navy should be sent in first.
Chris - Keighley
Here we go again. More NL spin. We have heard this before. All this review will result in is more salami slicing. All these questions they are asking are hot air. Why is it that every five years or so we have these reviews, and the language employed sounds like its the new bright future, the new way of doing things that will make everything alright? Pure rubbish.
The forces were cut in 1997, 2004, 1991, 1995, and on numerous occassions inbetween. A new SDR is not necessary, MORE MONEY is to maintain the dwindled force structure thats left.
" Need to be more adaptable and take on proactive military operations "
Nothing new, we already are, thus Iraq and Afghanistan. This also means keeping the RN and RAF you fools, otherwise how can we be adaptable and flexible if the army cannot depoly and has no aircover because some bright spark has deemed combat jets are no longer needed?
" Do we integrate more with allies"
We already do. Hoon said in 2004 it was unlikely the UK would go to war alone again. We operate as part of the UN, the EU, and NATO already. Do they mean a European army?
"What contribution should the Armed Forces make in ensuring security within the UK? "
The same as they have always done fools! Perhaps they would prefer no contribution and disband the lot?
"How could we more effectively employ the Armed Forces in support of wider efforts to prevent conflict and strengthen international stability? "
More spin. Simple answer. SPEND THE MONEY NEEDED!!! Then the RN and RAF could have the resources to effectively carry out this " proactive " posture they are banging on about.
"Do our current international defence and security relationships require rebalancing in the longer term? "
Are they going to withdraw from NATO then? The forces need more assets and cash, not drivvle like this.
Perhaps they plan a unified UK defence force, like Canada?
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford
If you have good arms, you will have good allies- Machieavelli-The Prince. As true today as it was centuries ago. Nobody wants a feeble ally.
As a teenager I was told by the great & good that Britain would never do another Suez, only NATO ops. A few years later Argentina invaded the Falklands. Future wars without allies may be forced on us by an enemy. We will probably not get to choose.
Would America risk their servicemens lives for the Falklands, Gibraltar, Pitcairn or Northern Ireland?
If UK defence had not been cut, then it would be due for a trim. However it has been cut many times since 1990. From roughly 4% of GDP to about 2.2%.
Have Overseas Aid, EU contributions, Quangos, management consultants, public sector layers of management been cut by the same amount? No they have mushroomed. Cut them by 40% & leave defence spending alone.
John Hartley - Woking/England/UK