UK 'can't defend against every threat'

HAVE YOUR SAY

He's correct in saying that the Navy should have more low tech ships to provide the correct balance between quality and quantity, I have said that here before and gives me hope that we may increase our numbers of maybe the lower spec T26 to do the "gunboat diplomacy" tasks such as disaster relief and counter drug patrols.

But if he thinks cutting numbers of transport aircraft is a good idea when the airbridge to Afghanistan and elsewhere is fully stretched then he and the rest of the SDSR people are utterly bonkers.

What this could be saying is that we scrap A400M and buy off the shelf C130J's instead. Cheaper and would then reduce the logistical tail. This is acceptable to me if numbers are maintained, even if the A400M is the better plane.

The references to 1UK Armoured Division can only mean cutting these 2 Brigades. If he wants to move them to the Uk, great for the uk economy, but where do they put them? Where are the barracks and how much would it cost to build this infrastructure?
Maybe use RAF Lyneham, close to the plain?

This review will be spin spin spin, just like all the others, resulting in yet more salami slicing of forces cut to beyond the bone for a country of this stature since 1991. He's already said as much that he wants us to retain a " balanced set of capabilities " be capable of intervening abroad, and able to conduct " robust warfighting"
Well, thats the ISTAR, Transport, Carriers and RFA safe then as you need all of those to have an expeditionary posture.

How hypocritical of him to say we are in a world that requires presence of numbers, yet its numbers that will be cut.

What WOULD make this review truely revolutionary and " getting away from the cold war" ( even though this statement he has uttered is nonsense as we did that in the 1991 Options for change review ) would be for the army to be stripped of its heavy and mechanized forces, the Armoured and Mechanized Brigades turned into light brigades, all equipped with lots of UAV's, hi tech ISTAR devices, lots of helis, lots of firepower, and put our money into the RAF and the RN. Without these two the army is toothless. How does it project itself abroad without aircover, carriers, Amphibious forces, the RM,ISTAR, Transports, the SH force, and the logistical tail to support it.

I'm not in favour of doing away with our Tanks, I'm just conceding that this indeed would be something different if they want a radical shakeup.

Instead, from what I'm hearing people want the demise of the RAF which is rich as in every recent war airpower has been vital and indeed the Gulf War was decribed as being almost won already by airpower before the troops even deployed.

My call for a strong RAF includes a fully equipped FAA, with around 80 F35. 3 x 12 aircraft squadrons making 36 when embarked at full max on the CVF. The 2nd carrier should still be built and be able to take fast jets should the 1st be in refit. At other times this 2nd carrier should be used as a heli carrier to replace HMS Ocean.
The idea that the navy would get 2 carriers each with its own airgroup was never going to happen, so this I think is a fair compromise and halves the JSF order saving billions. The F35C could be ordered at a later date with an UCAV to replace the last of the Tornado GR4's.


Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

Will the department now be called MoPD, Ministry of Partial Defence?
You either defend or you don't.
It won't take a genius to find the weakspot and there will be an incident which results in huge casualities due to penny pinching now.Defence needs a cash injection not a cash withdrawl.
Michael Gregg - Armagh, UK

F35 is too useful to cancel.UK has a stake too. Public should have a chance to buy shares in F35 to keep funding it with a view to getting money back with interest when export orders allow for this, e.g. Canada has ordered, and I expect more will follow.
John Cassford - ex R.O.C.

Then again, if we stuck to defence instead of intervention, we'd need less cash anyway - bin Trident, then fund a credible and properly kitted-out defence force.
Dave Crouch - L

If we can't afford something that will make potential aggressors, of whatever kind, think more than twice then all previous government ministers should be charged with treason!
Norman - UK

Hi Dave. I disagree. Binning Trident costs us our place in the UNSC. As for a force optimised for defence,consisting of WHAT exactly?

This country has been amongst the worlds leading powers for the last 300 years. Becoming like several small european nations I could name and burying my head in the sand is NOT what I want for my country. I want to be part of a country that has teeth, and bites at whoever may want to bite it, not tremble in the corner crying for mercy..." Ooh, please dont hit me, I promise I wont hit you" What you suggest is a national withdrawl and I utterly disagree!

You also forget our obligations with various worldwide defence agreements, and overseas territories, Falklands being the obvious example.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

He might well be correct about the Russians and if he has to bring home a brigade from Germany so be it but for pities sake dont sell the equipment, store it.
Same goes for the RAF and the navy, dont sell hulls or aircraft that have years of service left, have one crew for 2 platforms, at least then while one is in refit they can crew the spare.
tim dainton - romsey

what next for this idiot, we have just spoken to the Russians/china/north Korea /Iran/Somalia /Argentina/the Congo, we have decided to surrender to you in advance because we cant afford to defend ourselves, what a bloody laughing stock he is making us, but then like most politicians today including the conservatives it seem , they do as there political overlords in Europe tell them, if im wrong, then give our forces what they want, and if im right, we will all be European slaves in another 20 odd years, they say a leopard never changes its spots, well, neither do traitors or cowards, , was that a bit to harsh you think, tell that to the poor troops in the front line, they are really dying because we cant afford to defend ourselves, but we can still give billions [yes] billions to our masters in Europe, millions to china [yes even china] and India Pakistan, and halve the bloody world, but we cant defend ourselves, if that is not the biggest corruption statement and stinks of a sell out, then im not British [and i am]
and bloody proud to be, sack the bloody lot of them. that's what i say,
criss of herts - london

I would go the other way, and bin the RAF as it stands. A true expeditionary force would have its own organic airpower, both over land and sea. Truth be told, there is no part of the world that cannot be reached by carrier airpower; the army air corp (sound familiar?) would provide the local air support the land forces require while the FAA would provide the 'top' cover. I don't want to diminish the RAF's contributions, but the main role of any air force is to support offensive operations on land and at sea, and one would have to argue the RAF clearly does not grasp this mission with both hands. Recent reports have it that the RAF is even 'willing' to ditch the MR4 maritime patrol aircraft...of course, these are critical for RN operations (think SSBN patrol start sanitisation) and really should be under the RNs control. The RAF does not have the aircraft to provide strategic reach, so the only way to provide options for the wet blouses in Whitehall is to be able to park two fully equipped strike carriers nearby and send the jets in, slash send in the T45's with tactical cruise missiles..... Oh, that's right penny pitching knuckle-heads decided against that weapon fit... (The T26 should be a T45 rip-off as described in my "Type 26 and Astute Underway" post http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=12551). I would be absolutely against using the second strike carrier as a HMS Ocean replacement, this is totally illogical. Sure, re-role one to support and augmentate a HMS Ocean replacement further out to sea, to provide force multiplier capability. It is tactical, and in the case of the UK only having two, strategic suicide to place a lynchpin platform close in to shore where it is vulnerable to loss via symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare. (Re ROKS Chennan loss to Nth Korean Sang class submarine 2010).
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

Real threats,at a glance, Iran, North Korea-nuclear weapons.
Argentina- argie govt has now reported to spend more on defence, meko 140 to be upgraded,possible nuclear powered subs, the subs the argies are building at the mo, conventional, but can be upgraded to nuclear.The argies are hoping to purchase amphbious ships from France in the next 2 years.
International piracy in the Horn of Africa and south east asia.
Russia- be prepared, unpredictable.This world is one hell of a dangerous planet.
China,-massive defence spending, building carriers, yearns for a blue water Fleet.
The next battlefield will be Somalia and its borders,insurgency and militant organisations thriving in this area.You get rid of one problem, another one pops up.
As for MOD.sack 25,000 civil servants.
Army, close the bases in Germany, plenty of disused bases in uk, will be a big boost to the economy.Stop exercises in Canada.Exercise in UK.Army should have control of all helicopters from the RAF, apart from CSAR.Army should be 3 tier, Armoured, light armour (fres)and Light infantry.We must keep challenger2 and warriors, only get rid of them,when the rest of the world gets rid of thiers.Dannant did ask for 12 challengers to be sent to afgan, but that idiot(brown) at downing street, said they were too aggressive.Russia has just ordered thousands of t80 and t90.16 Air assault brigade to be enlarged.The Ghurka battalion's should be increased.
RAF should have 1 type of combat aircraft, typhoon, its designed to be multi role,and a superb aircraft for CAS, as well as CAP, contray to reports,eats Rafaele for breakfast on par with MIG 29 + 31, I have been told recently, by a typhoon pilot, a ratio of 2 to 1 in looses against the Raptor, this is only a rumour.Equipped with brimstone storm shadow, meteor, this truley, is a formidable aircraft
Have only C17 and C130 for transport,less maintance and less logistics.Get rid of Nimrod, use one make of aircraft for,airtankers/transport, maritime patrol.
Navy should be a blue water navy, fishery protection, and maritime patrol should be given to the Coastguard, SAR should be also handed to Coastguard.RFA to come under direct control of the Navy,3 carriers to be biult, have more f35 conventional, these are cheaper than Vstol variants, also the conventional type has better range and greater payload.the navy to have all the F35,squadrons not on the carriers to supplement RAF on tours of duty.Navy to have a heavy armed Corvette to, at a low cost with ASW, AA & AS cababiltiy.T45 to have Harpoon, and criuse missisles, these ships are expensive and bloody big with only AA missisles, that do not work at the moment. Replacement for t23 to be brillant as per t23.the t23 is truley a very multi purpose frigate, (ASW AA AS, and Command), and yes Gordon Brown sold 3 to Chile, dead cheap,when the navy needed them Amphibious fleet to be bigger, with 3 Commando Brigade to be enlarged.Keep the Trident subs, until the report comes out for a different solution,or go down to 3 subs.The Navy should purchase the ageis system for any future vessels.Carrier battle Groups are the future,it is and quicker to move a carrier group than a army division, and squadrons of fighter bombers to a hot spot.The armed forces have too many different types of machines, simplfy it, this would be cheaper, and could result in more.We cannot afford any more cuts in defence spending,the world is too dangerous.No matter how much each service slags each other off, rather childish,each service needs each other.To win wars, you need to have, complete control of air, sea and land.If the war zone is land locked, The Navy with its carriers, can support the army and airforce, EXAMPLE-Afganistan.Last 3 months economy reports are superb,it is not all bad news, tread carefully, or more young men and women will lose thier lives. Appeasement does not work FACT.
NB some idiot has come up with an idea, give the army control of the Royal Marines, thats fine as long as the RAF Regiment gets control of the armoured brigades, and CND to control the Trident subs,and 16th air assault brigade, to be controlled by Robert Mugabe.
NO MORE CUTS PLEASE
JOHN - Great Britain

Hi Shaun.

I agree with you concerning Ocean, of course having 2 carriers and Ocean is prefered, indeed, in an ideal world theres lots I'd want! I'm suggesting what might be acceptable to the idiots in Whitehall as a way of getting that 2nd carrier into service, cos we might well only end up with the one.

Re Nimrods for the navy, fair one, would have no problems with that and seems logical.

To John, while I agree with many of your points about what we'd like ( I'd like 3 carrier Battle Groups! ) I'm trying to be realistic to what we can cling onto out of this mess.

Gurkhas, I agree, I'd expand them.
T45, yes, I'd give it Harpoon and CIWS but not TLAM as that's provided by the SSNS and I see no need for the duplication of it. In an ideal world with limitless cash sure but in this reality no.

I dont see the advantage of stopping regiments going to Canada. If you want to keep heavy armour then BATUS is the place for All Arms Battlegroups to train as it has the size for live fire and manouvere other places in the UK lack.

I dont see how one could make an aircraft for AAR / transport and maritime duties. The MRA4 will have far more to it than just a patrol plane, its fully NEC enabled and more a multi role ISTAR asset, how can you also have this and a rear ramp and troops in one plane? Its a no no.
Besides which, Nimrod is coming in now, and the C130K needs replacing now, with A400M in line to replace it. How long does one spend developing this wonder aircraft while the RAF has no transports? No, by all means cancel A400 and instead by more C130J.

i agree with Tim. Equipment can be stored for possible future use, rather than disposed of.

Shaun, your ideas on the RAF interest me but in my heart I prefer an independent RAF. How much would it save disbanding the RAF in its current form as you suggest? As I see it all the capabilities would still be needed, what does it save if their RAF Typhoon squadrons or FAA ones? Nimrod, I concede could go to the navy, the SHF to the army is sensible, like other nations do. What about the Interdiction GR4 squadrons, the Typhoon fleet,or the ISTAR, or AWACS, or the Air Transport Fleet? The RN has no interest in these areas surely?

re the stories appearing in the press concerning Nimrods and the RM. I'd take all these with a pinch of salt. There have been numerous reports for the last decade of whats going next and often nothing happens. Nimrod is needed now, cut down to the bone at 9, cant see it being cut. Royal Marines being cut? Again cant see it, Amphibious warfare is one of the RN's core capabilities now and needed. just like the Astutes/ TLAM and CVFs are also a core capability. The Journalsist who I read had reported the demise of our LPDs obviously forgot to mention cutting the transfered RAF Merlins to the CHF, since with no amphibious ships as he was reporting there would be no need for the CHF to fly from these ships, and as I understand it they are still due for ( transfer ) so I dont believe all these stories in the media.

At the end of the day, its damage limitation for me. Its salami slicing again and I am trying to keep a sense or realism against what we could hold onto and demanding 3 carrier groups is never going to happen.
Daniele mandelli - Guildford

FAO Daniele
3 carriers are the minnium for operations.Your hotspots are in the med and Indian ocean., look at the French, what did they use when the De gaule was in dry dock.When you have 2 carriers, one in dry dock for refit and the other maybe in the far east, you have an incident in the med, what happens next.
t45 need to have criuse missisles as the Asute will be produced in small numbers (6 I think).
same model of aircraft would be same as the inflight refueling replacements (Airbus),these have dual transport cabability for troops and limited supplys, and more can be adapted for maritime patrol.We need more c130j right now, nearly 75% of the c130 are used in afgan theatre, and they are getting tired.As we speak the para's can't do training jumps,the SAS are jumping,in USA , because of the shortage.We need more c17's.
report on this site, likely to have thr Royals and Para's to form an elite group, well we will need plenty of boxing refs.I can see the sense in it,but remember in theory it might work, but in practise it will not work.From my experiences with both units,it will be hard to swallow.Remember the SAS/SBS Selection is run together.A joint command has been in force for several years.But why do the French still have marines for amphibious landings and the legion for air assault.my previous statement might sound far fetched,but what I have seen,I do not want any more defence cuts.If any government thinks money is more important than British military lives, then they are nothing short of traitors.a weakened defence will always attract trouble.Peace through supreior firepower, It is worth paying more taxes.
JOHN - GREAT BRITIAN

Hi Daniele.

I can understand your rationale WRT writing 2 carriers is realistic. However, with politicians, they would see the requirement for two carriers / LHD (effectively) as another way of reducing the requirement to one CVF. As the French and Russians have discovered, having one carrier causes severe operation constraints when maintenance is required (think FNS Charles De Gaulle and those lovely props!). The Italians have learnt also by this mistake, and have recently commissioned the INS Cavour) while also having the small but efficient San Giorgio Class as backups for some operations.

I would propose a one-for-one replacement of the three Invincible Class CVS's. This would allow for up to two on operations under surge requirements, with the third in refit / maintenance / training cycles; I believe John has similar views (no tag-teaming intended).

The number of air groups to support the operations of the three CVF's would also allow for the control of the UK air space, assuming the calculation of 3-for-1 for every operational squadron, plus 2 training groups for every 10 groups. Other groups would include operational evaluation, and ground support / attack. Assume minimum aircraft per squadron for peacetime duties is 12 (50% wartime capacity), with circa 24 air groups the UK would have 576 fast jets available for air defence and multi-role strike operations, less those on the carriers and in maintenance cycles. I would argue though for operations 'East of Suez' that squadrons would be beefed up to full 24 aircraft capability; since in the case of an incident operational needs change quicker than the flight time to reinforce the carriers or forward deployed squadrons. In essence, the third carrier groups in rotation with a few home groups would share the air defence duties easily vice the present RAF setup. Remember towards the end of WW1, the FAA use to do this anyway while the AAC was involved more heavily on the continent.

Of course the RN and AAC in any future absorption of the RAF would have all the supporting aircraft squadrons, including tactical transport, AA refuelling, ISTAR, AEW and patrolling (land and sea), as without these the core war fighting squadrons would be toast. Remember wars are fought on logistics, so the supporting squadrons would be key to maintaining a war fighting advantage.

The T45 and T26 must be fitted with cruise missile launching systems ASAP. The SSN's are too small in number to have a great tactical advantage in a medium sized shooting war. As I have previously mentioned in the T26 and Astute building underway article, a minimum 64/80 cells should be fitted to these surface vessels to provide the weapon load-out options required for the ships (plus at least 4 more T45s and I like the number 26 for the T26's). It is easy to see with 2 CVF and 6 T45, that the carriers will be woefully under protected, no matter how good the SAMPSON / Sea Viper combination eventually turns out.

Honestly, we need a medium scale conflict, like Falklands again to wake some people up that the numbers of the RN especially are too low to win with (without significant loss). In 1982 the RN deployed to the South Atlantic more ships than what it currently has total….. And as Admiral Woodward later said, it was a close run thing…
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

Sadly I have thought that as well, awful as it is, that something like another Falklands incident would put the navy centre stage.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

If thats all it takes to start a war, then british politition will have no trouble, they are experts at xxxxing everything up,
All this goverment has to do, is announce to the world, that due to cut backs, we may no longer be able to defend the falklands, we no longer have the surface fleet to send, hey presto, job done, how long do you think it will take the argentines to invade,.

criss of herts - london