UK 'naval prestige must be restored'

HAVE YOUR SAY

09 May 2012

Got to agree with Jim Murphy, the
government is incompetant in their handling of the carriers and the SDSR as a whole.
Robert Perry - Birmingham

09 May 2012

That's a bit rich from Jim as under Labour, the planned updates to Harrier GR9s and Sea Harrier FA2 were delayed and scrapped respectively. This effectively started the process to retire the aircraft early.
AW Employee - Yeovil

09 May 2012

AW Employee - Yeovil

Nothing Labour did compares to the SDSR, I would gladly return to the pre SDSR armed forces.
Graham - High Wycombe

09 May 2012

While I agree that naval prestige needs to be rebuilt, we must not forget that Labour presided over the perilous reduction of the surface fleet to 23 or so frigates and destroyers from the 35 or so they inherited and had started work on reducing the mine sweeper fleet before they were kicked out for mishandling the economy and wasting huge amounts of money on projects which showed little return. Politicians have got to move away from opportunism and start being consistent in their views.

Without doubt though, the current fleet is a national embarrassment. Our fleet should be something of national pride, integrity and, of course, effectiveness- not a line on an accountant's balance sheet.
Michael - Hertfordshire

09 May 2012

Again, Mp's just out to score petty points even though when they in power armed forces suffered just as much. Nothing changes in politics expect our forces personnel continue to receive inadequate equipment and continue to pay with thier lives, not those of the MP's.
JC - UK

09 May 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Except that Labour didn't have the money to pay for the kit, face it they are all as bad as each other, I readily agree that this current governments defence policies (especially the carrier fiasco) are a joke, however I also remember the clowns that got us into this mess in the first place, the £1.3 trillion national debt, I also remember the labour government who announced they had order 24 Chinook helicopters for our brave boys and girls in Afghanistan and never actually ordered them.

You cannot trust any of them, all politicians care about is votes and defence does not get them votes, Jim Murphy would do well to explain what a labour government would do differently and explain how they would pay for it . . .
Rob - Telford

09 May 2012

Long-range airborne radar saves lives(remember Falklands) - the carriers should not put to sea without catapults to launch the proven E2 Hawkeye.

Government gets criticised for inadequate body-armour - but no credible AEW is that writ large.
WFS - London

09 May 2012

Of course, scrapping the Sea Harrier FA2 didn't happen on Labour's watch while in government, thereby not setting in motion a chain of events that saw the Invincible Class being turned into a LPH with occasional embarked ground attack optimised Harriers and ultimately their premature retirement too as the next government looked to make savings from a big black hole in the defence budget that the previous government wasn't responsible for. And those events, of course, didn't happen without mentioning MaSC that the Royal Navy is now not using. It ceases to amaze me how politicians develop some kind of selective memory disorder once their party is in opposition and cry foul at every decision that their party contributed to when previously in government. The same diagnoses can also be provided to the current parties in power too.
Steve - London, UK

09 May 2012

If Murhpy was to sate Labour would do the following:

1 Order two more Type 45s
2 Increase the planned buy of Type 26s to 17
3 Buy a dedicated AEW platform for the two QE carriers (EH101?)
4 Develop STOBAR Typhoons for the RN
5 Go it alone on the Taranis production UCAV, which would also be carrier capable
6 Scrap trident and develop a British nuclear capable supersonic cruise missile for air or submarine launch.
7 Stream line the UK MOD

I might pay some attention to what he says.

Basically I not only want to hear criticism, but alternative plans
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

09 May 2012

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

They don't have plans, they are worse than the current bunch of lunatics that are in power at the moment, at least the ConDems are trying to sort out the debt issue, I certainly do not agree with a lot of their decisions on where they are making cuts, but I understand the need to tackle it.

As you mentioned I would love to hear the alternatives from Jim Murphy and also where he would get the money from to fund it, once he had done that then I might (if their plans made sense and their sums add up)contemplate voting for them, however I doubt that they will, any party who has a union stooge as a party leader and a lapdog as a shadow chancellor, a person who cannot make any concrete commitments and just criticise the current government at every turn, they have no plan to do anything about the £1.3 trillion debt.
Rob - Telford

09 May 2012

No it does not...

This is not about playing to forces EGO and ex-servicemens fond memories of glorious flag waving trips abroad.

The Royal Navy, just as the Royal Air Force and British Army, need to justify existence.
Perhaps we should take a look at our requirements, technologies coming into play.
Perhaps we should look at previous conflicts and learn not do "knee jerk" or opportunistic spends.
Interesting fact is Air force sank more Uboats than Surface Vessels during laast war.....
We need and must evaluate our environment, requirements and goals/position in the world.
This should be an all party assesment. It should be written into a joint agreement..
We need a REAL SDSR
Degradable - UK

09 May 2012

Degradable - UK

Exactly an SDSR based on actual Defence and Security needs and not based on slashing spending at all costs.
Rob - Telford

09 May 2012

Options for Change, now there was a beautifully crafted document. Detailed cuts yes (and a U-turn in policy if I recall; Brimstone), but it at least appeared to carefully and intelligently analyse Britain and the armed forces' role in the post Cold War environment and post-Gulf War. The SDSR 2010? 73 text-heavy pages in a garish green document detailing cuts and loose plans for a force to be introduced in a decade in the future that already appears to be having one major plan being reversed just two years later.
Steve - London, UK

09 May 2012

Murphy is a total hypocrite. Labour aren't interested in the RN or the forces in general. All they are concerned about is maintaining jobs in Labour constituencies. As soon as they are re-elected they will forget all about "naval prestige" and impose still deeper cuts. Laughable.
Murgatroyd - West Yorkshire

10 May 2012

Every government has black holes of funding from the previous governments they inherit power off. So that argument is always a bit thin.

It would appear off decisions in the past 5 yrs at least; that UK Labour has a better (relative) understanding of the UK military requirements.

I say relative because Labour did a pretty good (sic) job of running down defence as well.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

10 May 2012

Not sure why we need to even contemplate sovereign global power projection capabilities - in the lifetimes of these ships we will only slip down the international league table. The carriers are an unnecessary aspiration to return to previous days of glory!; Defence and the country have other priorities.
mike - London

10 May 2012

By the end of this Parliament in 2015, the Government will have a debt of £1.5bn.

If you want to spend more on defense, where is the money going to come from?
mikecml - essex

10 May 2012

Rather than hark back to the past, it might be better to recognise Britain's shrinking status.

The UK is 1% of the world. And is being overtaken in GDP terms by several emerging economies. In a very few years Britain's power and prestige will perhaps be of the same rank that the Netherlands or Denmark has today.

Its chasing a fantasy for such a nation to spend these vast sums on naval prestige.
Jeremy - Newcastle

10 May 2012

Jeremy - Netherlands and Denmark aren't isolated by an ocean. The British Isles are in the Atlantic and it has been proven time and again that we require a strong Navy to defend out supply lines. God knows, given recent intrusions and the superiority of others' air forces, the RAF can't!
AlMiles - Bristol, UK

10 May 2012

@ Graham,

Except spending money they never had. Hence the situation we are in.

Are we also forgotting the cull in the 1970's where we lost our conventional carrier's due to labour. How different the Falklands in 1982 would have been with Phantoms and Buccaneers.

In truth every Government is as bad as the last in terms of defence. We spend billions on aid abroad but cannot even afford to feed our OAP's.

I am not retiring in the UK as can no longer stand the place.
HamishUK - GB

10 May 2012

Jeremy- Newcastle, MikeCMI

Where's the money going to come from? Well how about foreign aid or social security? Maybe windfarm subsidies? What about a couple of billion from the huge NHS budget...they wouldnt even miss it. Maybe we could resist the urge to pay GP's and hospital consultants so much that they all become budding millionaires.

I'm also rather tired of the argument that we should slink into the shadows and accept our new role as just another Belgium or Denmark.The ultimate conclusion of that argument is that we should let other "more worthy" nations make our decisions for us.
We're not a minor European nation. We've hundreds of years of proud naval history. We were the world's first superpower, our territories once covered a third of the world and a quarter of its population. The modern world and its institutions were created by us.That unique history makes us different and consequently we should behave differently. The fact that some of choose to deny our history and our achivements is profoundly wrong and a betrayal of our past achievements. Life defines us by what we do. If we choose to do nothing what does that make us as a country?

People need national symbols to be proud of, they help bind us together. The Royal Navy was historically a symbol for our nation. It was something our country treasured and nurtured and unlike some of our national institutions it actually worked pretty well. It kept us safe from foreign powers and maintained our interests across the world. It is a highly achievable task to buld the Royal Navy up to a level where it is Europe's predominant navy it's not impossible it's just a matter of political will.

There's also a false economy in believing that money is "wasted" on defence and it can always be better spent elsewhere. Justify that argument once you've actually lost a war. If we lost the Falklands and imagine the blow that would send to this country. Do you think this country would retain its territoral integrity? Scottish independence would be highly likely.

We should all be aware of politicians with lazy, tired justifications for defence cuts. There is no excuse for the current size and state of the Royal Navy. It's in the state it's in because the politicians who are in charge quite frankly dont really care. We should make them care. We should always challenge their stupidity, we should spotlight their screw ups and when they look for respect we should reward them with scorn.Maybe in that way we can eventually "educate" them into making the rights decisions.
David Bevan - UK

10 May 2012

SIMiles - what is the rationale for thinking our SLOCs will be specifically targeted and by whom? We don't sit in the middle of the Atlantic but right next to Europe: don't we need to move on from the "fog in the Channel, continent isolated" attitude that grandiose plans like the carriers give costly expression to?
mike - London

10 May 2012

AlMiles - Bristol, UK

Agree with you totally,those who crack on about national prestige,no need for carriers and no need for power projection obviously totally ignorant of what the Defence of the realm is about.Do they not know that around 92% of our trade,energy resources and food comes by sea,much of it through high risk trade routes.If cut off it will only be three days before the shelves start emptying.Maybe their geography is not that good and they have no idea what being an Island nation means.I do not agree with this governments handling of Defence either but to answer Ex RNZN Shaun,you may like to know that the last three Labour governments have inherited the UK in a fairly good financial state and left it in serious dept.To the others,it is nothing to do with past glories,international league tables or 'bigging up' the 'Royal Navy' against the other services.It is about preserving our abilty to live and preserve our way of life and culture in a country that is heavily reliant on the rest of the world.It just so happens that having a strong Royal Navy, with all the flexibilty that this always has and always will have for decades to come is not a luxury,it is a national requirement.Governments will learn to ignore it at their peril,whatever the cost.
Howard N - Farnborough,UK

10 May 2012

David, Howard,

Most European countries have the same level of dependence as us on extra-European trade routes but do not share global defence ambitions; do they feel any less secure as a result? Only in the UK is there such paranoia about our place in the world and inadequacy of our defence, sorry I'm wrong something similar bubbles away in Putn's Russia.
mike - London

10 May 2012

Mike - London

Most European countries spent some time last century occupied by a foreign power. Strangely enough we didn't.

And as for us being Putinlike. Well Russia is already rearming and apparently threatening preemptive strikes on eastern europe. Maybe we should mirror some of that rearnament. It seems to me that prioritisng windmills and foreign aid over defence in these times is rather a strange choice for our government.
David Bevan - UK

10 May 2012

David, partly your first point rec-enforces my previous; in spite of being occupied 70 years ago they no longer see it as a rigid lesson to shape defence policy.The world has changed dramatically over the years and now has a far greater level of interdependence; we should look to have an appropriate defence strategy, and personally, I feel we should provide decent capabilities across the board. A navy that can deploy one capital ship and dozen escorts may give a sense of prestige but only a limited military effect.
mike - London

10 May 2012

...and the wind turbines also decrease our reliance on imported power...and foreign aid to help with our overseas influence; there's a whole world out there besides defence or maybe of which defence is but a linked part.
mike - London

10 May 2012

Jim Murphy is right but there have been mistakes all along.I have not heard anything with regard to uav or ucav being part of a future air wing which i believe need cat and trap to operate from carriers so at somepoint, someone, somewhere will have to bite the bullet and convert the damn things.I am now reminded of what my dad (ex army) said "we know the cost of everything but the value of nothing" here's hoping that the f.35b will be bought in small numbers and when f.35c problems been ironed out we will operate them from qe2 and pow and keep f.35b to operate from the next generation of amphibious helicopter ships i know its dream but we can all dream god GOD DEFEND THE ROYAL NAVY cos the politicians will not
andy - solihull

10 May 2012

David Bevan - "We WERE the world's first superpower, our territories ONCE covered a third of the world....our PAST achievements...". Yes but, in 1941/42, if not before, the world watched as we proved that nostalgia and posturing aren't enough to qualify as a great power. You want us to have "Europe's predominant navy"? Since nobody in Europe threatens our interests, that achieves nothing except to buy us a "national symbol" which wouldn't bind the country together at all, as a lot of people would think it a pointless, flag-waving extravagance.

Howard N - how exactly do you think we could protect all those high-risk trade routes, with any size of navy that we might conceivably be able to afford? After we'd beggared ourselves building it up, it would probably be academic anyway: our economy would be in such a state that we wouldn't be able to afford to import anything. It's all a dream: the world moved on long ago.
Stan - York

11 May 2012

Mike

Your absolutely right I see it clearly now. We should definitely model our defence policy on whatever Belgium is doing with a priority given to windmills and giving money away to other countries.
Thanks for your helpful insight .
David Bevan - UK

12 May 2012

All of the comments so far seem to suggest one thing. Long term commitments - as most defence projects inevitably are - should be removed from the fixed cycle of party politics. One government orders something, then the next wants to get rid of it! Why can`t we have an all party commitee to decide what we need in the National interest, then have all parties stick to it! With the continuity of everyone "singing from the same hymn-sheet" then we MIGHT actually get the forces that we need !
Steve R - London

19 July 2012

I'm with David Bevan. Let's do whatever Belgium does!
Kit - Bristol

19 July 2012

And, in all seriousness now, I like the thought of steve R's idea. Most overruns and cost increases come from the military changing the requirements of a piece of kit, but those changing requirements come from successive governments changing their minds about what the UK armed forces should be able to do. It is intensely frustrating to watch. Maybe an all party committee is the way to go - although you'd then have the problem that trying to get all parties to agree would be nigh on impossible.
Kit - Bristol

20 July 2012

The only way we will get any presitge back inall our armed forces is to have a set budget and take descisison making out of politians hands to say 19 escorts is enough is laughable we have a dependence on sea imports for energy and food supplies we can't rely on the US navy to help us out we need a credible escort fleet to police our sea lanes and choke points the NSC should be partisan in its approach to defence with a set percentage of GDP set in stone with governments unable to rob the defence of the realm to pay for socialist policies like the "pupul premium" maybe if our schol systems weren't swamped with illigeal imigrant children they would be able to live within there budgets the DFID budget is a joke how can we be making dedicated service personnel unemployed.We don't need just naval prestige we need ntional pride
michael - manchester