- 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
DeliciousReport: MoD faces a decade of cuts
Thursday, July 02, 2009The MoD could have to make cuts as deep as £6bn from its budget in the next six years if the country does not recover from the economic recession or if the MoD is not exempt from the looming cuts, a new report has found.
Professor Malcom Chalmers' Future Defence Review working paper from RUSI, paints a dark picture of the coming years at the MoD.
If defence spending is kept in line with the cuts expected across the government, defence spending will drop in real terms by 6.8 per cent by 2014 and 11 per cent by 2016.
Even if the MoD can win an exemption in the budget cuts battle, it may still face deep and painful cuts in the coming years.
Whichever government is in power from next year will have to maintain spending commitments to the NHS and education, resulting most likely in their massive budgets being frozen instead of cut. Factoring that in with the growing demand on the unemployment pay and state pension system, and the MoD and other departments may have to face cuts in order to pay for all of this.
Chalmers predicts that the MoD could face a budget cut of 14 per cent if these variables all fall into place.
Then there is the issue of the economy. The Treasury predicts a return of growth by late next year. But these figures are arbitrary at best and are rapidly changing in this uncertain economic climate.
As a result, if growth is less than predicted so will tax revenues, meaning even deeper cuts will be required for the MoD.
The government has also emphasised that many of the pending cuts will come from the capital budget. In the MoD, capital investment is among the highest in Whitehall, totalling around £9bn.
"If the new chancellor persists in focusing cuts disproportionately on the capital budget, therefore,
the MoD could be one of the hardest-hit departments," Chalmers wrote.
When the MoD's lower standing in the cabinet is factored in, the department could face a cut of 10-15 per cent in real terms over the course of the next decade, Chalmers argues.
To make savings , the MoD will have to make some tough choices. Chalmers recommends reductions in operations, the number of MoD and Armed Forces personnel, or the most likely option: Huge cuts to the procurement programme.
If Chalmers is correct in his predictions, the next decade could be one to forget for the MoD.
HAVE YOUR SAY
I disagree entirely, and i believe everyone who believes in the Armed Forces should stand up and fight for it!
Jonny - London
What a load of rubbish, Australia half our size in population and GDP is spending billions on defence
What about the UK for a change?
Ian - London
1 TRILLION POUNDS CAN BE FOUND TO RESCUE THE UK's INSOLVENT BANKS BUT THE UK ALLEGEDLY 'CAN'T AFFORD TO DEFEND ITSELF'- BUNK!!!"
Whatever the state of US-Russian relations, the United Kingdom is likely to be back-stopping the US as it has done, productively, for decades following WW II...
In pondering how the UK ought to be approaching Russia in coming decades & in deliberating the possible future size/equipping of the UK's Armed Forces, UK politicians & bureaucrats would do well looking back in history- particularly to the pre-WW II period...
---------------------------
1 TRILLION POUNDS CAN BE FOUND TO RESCUE THE UK's INSOLVENT BANKS BUT THE UK ALLEGEDLY 'CAN'T AFFORD TO DEFEND ITSELF'- BUNK!!!"
It was only, barely, 6 years between 1933 when Hitler and his Nazi party gained control of then Germany's governmental structures and 1939 when the world was plunged headlong into WW II...
Because there is a comparative calm upon the world today in terms of dangerously oppositional relationships between the world's present great powers is not reliable-logic or trustable-evidence that today's situation could not change overnight...
A United Kingdom with a new generation Trident missile & nuclear submarine delivery system- even if never used in war- is still a better off country than one which, in effect, decides to disrobe itself on-the-world-stage and invite the savage beasts of the international foreign-policy jungle to afternoon tea...
If anything, planning proposals for the next generation of UK Trident are too modest: the proposed new nuclear missile carrying submarines are significantly undersized and would carry far too few Trident missiles
The UK ought to be developing both its missile system and new-model ICBM carrying nuclear submarines jointly with the United States, which also is in planning stages to replace its present Trident missile/nuclear submarine system...
While it's a truism that all countries' armed forces need to be efficient, once the consequences of meeting efficiency-objectives result in the effective neutering of a country's armed forces- or branches thereof- then whoever is pushing for- and/or facilitating- these 'armed forces branches' 'rationalizations' becomes party to a form of traitorous negligence...
The UK's armed forces have been severely 'over-rationalizing'- IE making too many cuts in men, heavy-fixed-assets such as warships, materiel & even basic-training for most of the last 10-years...
The egregious results have been entirely predictable- for example- the Royal Navy today isn't fit to fight anything close to a real conflict- whether a one-off skirmish or an ongoing war- against even a modestly-modern-weapons-equipped foe(s)...
The RN's elderly, defective &/or obsolescent Submarines, Destroyers, Frigates & Aircraft Carriers have not been replaced in a responsible (IE with up-to-date technologies) or timely manner & certainly not in mission-sufficient numbers....
Over the last 10-years, when RN warships have been (or planned to be) replaced, the rule under Labour has been to tamper with & chop-off vital components of designers'/contractors' specifications & designs for new warships- to the point that the ships produced are dangerously under-equipped in terms of weapons systems, ship-board defenses and levels of technology...
- The new Type-45-model Destroyer programme- with several under construction for the Royal Navy today- is a case in point:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/23/type_45_cpac_slammage/page2.html
AND
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/23/type_45_cpac_slammage/page2.html
What few Type-45's that are being built- less than 1/3 of needed- are functionally incapable of any war-fighting/military tasks other than launching primary defensive missiles at incoming air-borne threats...
Type-45's have none of the weapons/sensor systems required by modern Destroyers/Frigates to deal with & defend against sub-surface and surface targets/threats...
These front-line warships have no 'secondary defensive systems', (also known as 'Close In Weapons Systems' (CIWS)) installed, for use in known-to-be-unavoidable combat situations when the Type-45's 'primary' defensive system (missiles) miss their target- or when the Type-45 expends its puny supply of 48 defensive missiles...
The directives that Type-45's be constructed with a virtual void of weaponry, ammunition-capacities & defensive systems have resulted in brand new Royal Navy warships that easily could have been the most potent and effective (for their displacement) of their type in the world- being third-rate 'make-work-projects' at best...
Why Type-45's are being built of a size & with on-board facilities capable of embarking/supporting just 1 helicopter each, instead of 2- like other top-tier countries' navy's Destroyers- has never been justified by Labour...
2 copters are particularly useful to have, if, in the middle of a battle, 1 copter is lost while the suspected location of a known threat is out of delivery-range of the ship's on-board weapons and sensors...
Similarly, the Labour-handicapped-design of the planned new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy is- if proceeded with- going to result in ships that would barely be suitable to fight a WW II type conflict, and certainly not 21st century ones...
Why?
The RN's new aircraft carriers won't be built with catapults.
Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types...
The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land ) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the function of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...
Without AWACS planes flying high above the respective carrier & its battle group- scanning OVER THE HORIZON for potential threats & theatre data- carriers & their support/escort ships are enormously vulnerable to low-flying (sea-skimming) incoming airborne threats such as supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles & aircraft...
The new carriers won't be nuclear powered meaning these ships- if built- will be unable to generate sufficient power for fitting them with coming on stream/under-development 21st century armaments such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEWS) & will be significantly range/endurance-limited due to their fossil-fuel engines- & their aircraft- requiring constant refills of fuel from supply ships- particularly problematic if, during a conflict, the carrier's supply ships get sunk....
As well, due to their 'on-the-cheap' design, the RN's planned new aircraft carriers won't be able to stock & use tactical nuclear weapons- ...
Thereby eliminating these ships' usefulness in a legitimate hot-war- a situation that only the very most willfully ignorant/tunnel visioned would say can be ruled out during the projected 30- 50 year operational life of these "central to the RN's function" ships...
Similar to the country's emaciated & cannibalized indigenous research & development base, the UK's armed forces need substantial long-term investment- not another politically-driven review.... guaranteed to cause money-wasting inter-service rivalries....
This in addition to the armed forces needing political & military leaders who are prepared to speak against the intellectually-dishonest falsities that Labour- & some in the MoD- have been disseminating for over 10-years...
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada,
(PART 2)
1 TRILLION POUNDS CAN BE FOUND TO RESCUE THE UK's INSOLVENT BANKS BUT THE UK ALLEGEDLY 'CAN'T AFFORD TO DEFEND ITSELF'- BUNK!!!"
The RN's new Type-45 Destroyers are comparable to the US Navy's Burke (batch IIA) Destroyers in type/class, but Burkes have an anti-airborne-threat missile capacity nearly 7 times that of Type-45's... with each Burke able to be armed with more than 360 primary anti-airborne-threat missiles... to the Type 45's maximum of 48...
Type-45's and Burke's primary anti-airborne-threat missiles are roughly similar in that both Type-45's and Burke's missiles come in medium and long range versions, with both missile versions loadable into and fire-able from their respective ships' on-board missile launchers...
In the case of the Burke, each of these ships' missile launchers have a total of 96 'slots' for loading missiles into.
Each 'slot' will allow 1 long-range or 4 medium-range primary anti-airborne-threat missiles to be loaded into and fired from it.
This enables Burkes- with their 96 missile launching 'slots' per ship- to be put on patrol armed with anywhere from a minimum of 96 up to more than 360 primary anti-airborne-threat missiles, depending on whether the respective Burke Destroyer's missile launchers are loaded with medium or long-range versions- or a mix of the two...
Although both the medium and long range versions of the Type-45's anti-airborne-threat missiles can be loaded into and fired from the same on-board launchers- unlike the US Navy's Burkes, 'quad-packing' the Type-45's medium-range missiles into (respective Type-45) missile launchers' individual 'slots' that normally are loadable with one long-range missile isn't possible...
Individual Type-45's missile launchers have only 48 missille launcher 'slots'.
A Type-45 launcher 'slot' that can be loaded with one long-range missile can not be loaded with 4 medium-range missiles...
So, Type-45's each have a maximum capacity of only 48 anti-airborne-threat missiles regardless whether each Type-45 is armed entirely with medium or long-range or a mix of medium and long range variants of their anti-airborne-threat missiles...
Potentially more than 360 anti-airborne-threat missiles for each of the US Navy's Burkes vs a maximum of only 48 for the UK Royal Navy's 'newest, best warship'- the Type-45...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/27/hms_diamond_launches_ouch_ouch/
This is not to say that Burkes' or Type-45's missiles are better at defeating airborne threats...
Which one would you want to be protecting your country's interests??
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada,