- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
SDSR strategy 'was deficit reduction'
19 May 2011
Lord Stirrup said that following the review the UK was unlikely to have a "coherent, balanced set of capabilities" until plans for Future Force 2020 came to fruition.
"Most people have charged that the Strategic Defence and Security Review was not strategic," Stirrup told the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. "It most certainly was strategic, but the strategy was to eliminate the deficit.
"Frankly, even from a security and defence point of view I'd have to say that was the right objective, because without a strong economy and without growth and sound finances we are not going to have secure defences."
Stirrup said the review was limited by preconditions such as the need to cut between 10 and 20 per cent from the defence budget without affecting operations in Afghanistan.
"When those are the starting conditions your options are pretty limited and there is no way you can achieve those ends without reducing capability," he said. "So quite clearly we were in the business of reducing our overall defence capability in the years ahead.
"Our approach was to look a bit further and say: 'OK, by 2015 we don't think we will have what would be considered a coherent, balanced set of capabilities across the spectrum but we could get back to them by 2020'.
Stirrup said this relied on a real terms increase in defence spending following the next general election.
At an evidence session last week, forces chiefs unanimously agreed that Britain was no longer a 'full spectrum power', able to carry out the whole range of military tasks.
Lord Stirrup went further than current chiefs, however, saying that Britain has not been a full spectrum power for several years.
"There are military capabilities which the UK nationally has not had for some time," he said. "Did we have full spectrum capability two years ago? On many definitions the answer to that is no."
Prime Minister David Cameron had earlier told the Commons that he believed Britain still was a full spectrum power.
Lord Stirrup also disagreed with a statement within the National Security Strategy which stated that the strategy must "reject any notion of a shrinkage of our influence". Committee chair James Arbuthnot MP described the sentence as "nonsense".
"That particular sentence was debated, as you might imagine, quite a lot," said Stirrup.
"The arguments that were advanced in support of it were 'well, OK yes you are reducing the amount you are doing in defence but you can make up for that in foreign policy terms in diplomacy and in other areas'.
"Personally I didn't buy it. My personal view is that if the priority is to eliminate the deficit over the course of a parliament then the rather drastic action that would be necessary will mean a period of strategic shrinkage.
"That was my personal view but that was not the view that prevailed in the production of the document."
Asked what specific capabilities, other than carrier strike, had suffered most in the SDSR, Stirrup said that anti-submarine warfare, with the loss of Nimrod MRA4, was no longer possible – although he said there were no current threats and that such a loss was "not a critical weakness".
"In the circumstances of a resurgent submarine threat we would not be able to send a naval task force to sea unless somebody else provided that capability," he said. "It wasn't a case of we would be taking a bit more risk, we just simply couldn't do it."
HAVE YOUR SAY
19 May 2011
Wow somebody has come out and said it, were no longer PREMIERSHIP and just about at the top of the CHAMPIONSHIP . Make up for it in diplomacy ? yeah CHINA ,RUSSIA ,INDIA really care what we say . They do exactly the opposite to what we do at the UN .
Dutchy - uk
19 May 2011
The reality is that if we took a sensible, evidence based approach to defence we could meet all our security needs at a reasonable price.
The problem is that we are not equipping the armed forces to defend the country, but to fight in overseas wars which are none of our business, and on pointless political vanity projects like Trident nuclear weapons.
David H - Manchester, jewel of the North
19 May 2011
David H of Manchester has no concept of strategic needs; which includes, apart from military options, the need to import fuel and food.
He probably runs a fencing company and would love to get the contract to put a substantial fence around the 10,000 mile UK coastline!
Norman - UK
19 May 2011
Oh, I forgot, those who think this country and the good 'ol US of A go to war over oil tend to ignore the fact that we actually BUY the oil not STEAL it!! This, of course, because of the shipping distance involved, could give some people, such as OBL or some 'state player' the idea of depriving us of our property which we just bought on the open market!
Clare Short are you reading this??
Norman - UK
19 May 2011
David H - Manchester, jewel of the North
Disagree with this, China, India, Russia, Pakistan, Israel all possess Nuclear weapons. All of them are not on the same sociological and ideological page as we are. That isn't a problem but it is if we don't have the ability to punch them back if things get out of hand.
As for fighting in overseas wars. The reason we have got involved in so many overseas wars around the middle east is because of the brutal reality that we are a trade dependent nation. We CANNOT function for much more than a month without that overseas trade... probably less.
Thats before we consider Indian Ocean territories, South Altantic Territories, West Indies territories.
Britain certainly needs to start demanding value for money from the MOD and the Defence Industry. But to think that it can make do without things like Amphibious, Carrier and Nuclear assets is folly. We did that less than 40 years ago... didn't turn out too well and one can argue that the result has cost us a lot.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom
19 May 2011
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom
Don't mention Trident or its replacement or the leftie bloggers will call you a frightened little man. . . For what its worth agreed
Rob - Telford
19 May 2011
Don't mention Trident or its replacement or the leftie bloggers will call you a frightened little man. . . For what its worth agreed
Rob - Telford
I'm no tree-hugging sandal wearing, Ban-the-Bomb CND type, but I do question the need for weapon delivery systems that a limited to just 1 type of role - Ultimate Deterrence. While India, China, Russia, USA, Israel, S Africa et al possess nuclear weapons, they are reasonably stable regimes (OK maybe not USA) that are unlikely to launch a pre-emptive strike on any other nation.
Other nuclear equiped nations such as Pakistan, N Korea, Iran & maybe Libya could be expected to launch a strike, but (so far) lack the ability to deliver it long range and pre-owned B-1Bs, B-52s, F-111s etc are hard to source with their weapon delivery systems intact. Therefore it is likely that any nuclear device they choose to deliver is in a shipping container on the back of a ship or lorry with a mobile phone trigger. Proving who sent it will be a challenge if it goes off.
A far more credible deterrent would be the use of tactical nuclear devices, delivered by artillery, air or sea launched missile. In this way, swift retribution may be meted out to the leaders that authorise any use of nuclear weapons against us without wiping out 000s of otherwise innocent victims. So in a nutshell, I am happy to keep nuclear weapons as a deterrent, but not if it is as a single-role platform (Big and Expensive System).
AW Employee - Yeovil
19 May 2011
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom
Don't mention Trident or its replacement or the leftie bloggers will call you a frightened little man. . . For what its worth agreed
Rob - Telford
You caught me. Sometimes it's fun throwing the red rag to the bull.... Just as long as you get out the way in time!!
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom
19 May 2011
Too bad he didn't voice his opinions more loudly during his time as CDS!
JTAC - RAF
19 May 2011
It is obvious defence money was switched to foreign aid. As DfID staff do not like leaving their luxury offices, the chance for corruption, theft & incompetence is high.
Do not give money, for it to be stolen. Buy kit from India with it, say Dhruv helicopters for AAC hot & high missions, plus Brahmos missiles for our T45. Trade not aid. India still gets the money, but we get something back for it.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK
19 May 2011
Why oh why is great Britain saddled with a bunch of stupid silly corrupt incompetent fools, that clearly live in cuckoo land, why have we been saddled with these fools, what did we ever do to upset someone to be saddled with these,, why not just scrap the British armed forces,
Now this will make all the pacifist's and politicians and our friends very happy, well according to our politicians, the world loves us, and we have no enemies, so scrap the bloody lot,
[then listen to the silence] and start counting, one day, one week, one month, how long do you normal people think it will be, before the so called [friendly countries that love us] will come out of the woodwork and start to destroy everything British, , stop our trade , unless you pay more, disrupt our way of life, how long do you think it will take before certain countries start killing brits, ,and, Argentina take the Falkland's, Spain takes Gibraltar, Cyprus removes us, because if people think that Britain can command and negotiates, and lead from a position of naked neutrality, then you would have destroyed 2,000 years of history to find this out, SADLY we know better, and thousands upon thousands of brits would die, trying to save this country from foreign attack or control, by then it would be too late to say [SORRY WE GOT IT WRONG]I believe , you lead and command from a position of strength, if you are not ready to defend then you are being led by fools,
What I'm saying is, right or wrong, that great Britain must and have the strength and the full military to defend this country and others when required, or we have nothing, if you listen to the politicians we are still number one, very strong and powerful, and we all live in cuckoo land, sorry I do not subscribe to this crap, we must stop these corrupt politicians from destroying us, at the same time telling us, that nothing is wrong, and to trust them, would you trust the devil, then don't trust our politicians,[[ just a thought .]]don't all condemn me at once,
criss of herts - london
20 May 2011
CLEARLY DEFINED ROAD MAP DEFINING HOW & WHEN CAPABILITIES LOST AS A RESULT OF DEFENCE CUTS WILL BE RESTORED URGENTLY NEEDED!!!
The severe cuts to the UK's armed forces' budget, capabilities and equipment may, arguably, be justifiably necessary....
But without the UK govt simultaneously putting forward- in writing- an explicitly articulated, detailed road map stating how & WHEN the armed forces' capabilities that are cut/lost as a result of the recent & upcoming budget cuts will be re-generated- then these budget cuts are entirely inappropriate & inexcusable!!
-----------
Although the UK is facing considerable financial difficulties, its current military mega-projects such as the new, big deck aircraft carriers and the F-35 fighter/bomber (that is being developed in partnership with the U.S.), badly need to be better defined and promoted in both the UK-public and international spheres...
These 2 needed weapons programmes are currently so enshrouded in uncertainties, negative-reporting and ambiguous final-product definition that UK voters', foreign corporations' and other nations' confidence in the UK's current industrial competencies and future naval capabilities is being badly damaged...
Whether the UK's planned, new big deck aircraft carriers are kept by the UK after construction and commissioned into the Royal Navy or sold on to other nations is immaterial...
Completing the building of these warships with confidence, quality and aplomb so that both the build-processes and final products impress the rest of the world is vital to the UK avoiding looming international ridicule- if these vessels end up as multi-billion pound functionally incapable duds as is the direction today- constructed while the rest of the Royal Navy was eviscerated and rendered little more than a glorified 'ferry service'...
Counterproductive UK public/international perceptions of and lack-of-confidence-in the UK's 'big deck' aircraft carrier project, the F-35 Fighter/Bomber project and related UK industrial competence generally could only be minimized by the MoD, UK govt and UK's business community regularly playing up and ACCURATELY 'promoting' the planned-for capabilities of the planned aircraft carriers, the F-35 Fighter/Bomber and their respective weapons, sensors, communications and defensive systems...
To do otherwise- as has regularly been the case since these projects began nearly a decade ago- cultivates highly negative, damaging impressions of the UK govt, UK industries and of the UK generally, IE: disorganized; directionless; incompetent; wounded, an invalid country, etc..
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada
20 May 2011
AW Employee - Yeovil
The comment was not really aimed at you as I thought some of the point you made on the other news item were sensible, it was aimed at the fluffy bunny CND ban the bomb guys who called me a frightened little man. As you quite rightly said, if the decvice was delivered by Terrorists in the back of a container then correct who would we retaliate against? However I disagree with the point when you stated we wouldn't retaliate against a nation state if attacked first. I think we would.
Rob - Telford
20 May 2011
I agree with Roderick.
Maybe we should buuy Canadian?
Stephen M - London
20 May 2011
"I agree with Roderick.
Maybe we should buuy Canadian?
Stephen M - London"
I trust this is sarcastic? British fighting capability is leagues above native Canadian fighting capability. Not to mention the industry being more developed.
Oh and different political and defence interests.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom
20 May 2011
"Anthony - Bristol"-
If the UK was not in such serious fiscal and economic difficulties, and if the UK did not play such a central role on most of the world's economic, military, legal, and similar structures it would be OK to joke about comments made with constructive intentions...
Canada's indigenous defence industry capabilities are comparatively under-developed...
Despite this, over the next year or so Canada's federal govt plans to let contracts for construction of up to one dozen new surface combatants and support ships:
- "Davie Yards Continues Negotiations With (ITALY's) Fincantieri and DRS", 19_05-2011:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/davie-yards-continues-negotiations-with-fincantieri-and-drs-1517117.htm
- http://www.timescolonist.com/Comment+Ottawa+must+back+West+Coast+shipyards/4808375/story.html
-http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Business/2011-05-04/article-2476751/Council-endorses-Irving-Shipbuilding-bid-for-national-contract/1 :
" (Canada's) Federal government strategy, announced in June 2010,... will create two "centres of excellence" in the design and building of both combat and non-combat ships. The combined value of the work is approximately $30 billion over the next 30 years... "
If the UK's own ship-building projects- such as the 'big deck' aircraft carriers- continue to appear to outsiders as chaotically-planned*, badly managed and with projected end products that will have hugely dangerous shortfalls in both defensive and offensive capabilities- how will this affect UK defence firms' abilities to get on short-lists as project-managers and/or subcontractors for Canada's upcoming warship build programmes??
* largely due to the previous UK Labour govt's incompetence and administering (+ funding/approving) the 'big deck' carrier programme based on "political, 'jobs-for-votes'" principles rather than strategic defence requirements...
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada
20 May 2011
I'm not going to get into a name calling match.
However the fact remains that Canada has a very different requirement than the UK. Furthermore it largely lacks the industry for a number of larger more complex warships. Not to mention nuclear submarines.
It's building, organising and development of the procurement process has been equally diabolical and is only now beginning to see fruition.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom