| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
frogGB |
Defence cuts may put Triedent replacement plan on scap heap |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 560 (19-Jun-2009 19:14:00) |
|||
BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 2184 (19-Jun-2009 19:17:06) |
Brown, just announce a complete disarmament and get it over with.
|
||
Jimlad1 |
|||
|
Posts: 1609 (19-Jun-2009 21:02:16) |
Ill informed speculation based on rumour and hearsay and not truth...
|
||
MSR |
|||
|
Posts: 2919 (19-Jun-2009 22:44:02) |
If we decide to decommission the nuclear deterrent, we must not do it for financial reasons. Let the Government make a decision ... okay, you can stop laughing
now ... or let us hold a national referendum on the subject.
In other words, base the decision on principle, not on the balance sheet! If we cut the deterrent merely to save money, we will never, ever again be able to go into the wider world and work to avert possible nuclear conflicts between other nuclear powers, as we did when working alongside the US and Europe to bring India and Pakistan back from the brink a few years ago. Nor will we have any moral standing when it comes to winning the global hearts and minds campaign against those nations that want to become new nuclear powers. They and the global community would be perfectly correct to tell us to shut up. Politicians, do it for your country, your politics or your party - whichever allegiance you hold most dear. Do it because you don't believe history will repeat itself, or do it because you do and don't want it to! Do it so that your teenage activist daughter will think you're cool again. Do it just because you can. Do it because you're a rabid extremist and hate the military. Do it because you're a religious nutter. I don't really care why you do it, but if you do, I demand that you have a good reason that has nothing to do with the finances! Here's a thought: do it because you're an outgoing Prime Minister desperate to secure some kind of legacy and all your other efforts have fallen flat. But for Christ's sake, do for any other reason than just to save money!
The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
|
||
PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 4288 (20-Jun-2009 01:23:48) |
MSR wrote: Everything Brown does is about money (in the short term), he can't think about anything else, its against his nature.
'We are showing progress. Things are getting worse at a slower rate'
|
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 4373 (20-Jun-2009 14:19:41) |
Now while there may indeed be a argument to go from a offensive system like Trident to a defensive one like an ABM system, there is no military argument for
just scrapping one system without some alternative, especialy so when we all know the money saved is'nt going to stay in the MoD budget. Such a mssive cut
won't pay for a single boot or bullet since it will just disapear into the Treasurey's black hole. BTW the 'saving' will have some minor effect
on the economy too and not a good one considering the wider economic circumstances.
Now one might argue that if we undergo a massive policy shift, curling into a ball and recalabrating the armed forces for the pure defensive only mission (Swedish option?) then one might entertain cuts elsewhere. Namely CVF, the Amphibious forces, and a host of other power projection elements throughout the armed forces which a purely terratorialy defensive set of forces don't need. But under the circumstances of this article its dammned treason what some seem to be proposing and the media pumping out like its already been decided makes them culpable. They seem to want us to copy Austria or perhaps Iceland. They seem to promote not a defense policy, but an absence of policy along with an absence of personnel and materials or war. A defenceless policy perhaps? |
||
Colin Mc |
|||
|
Posts: 758 (20-Jun-2009 16:30:31) |
Till now, I have taken the view that Gen Rupert Smith's dictum "Nuclear Weapons banish Industrial War" was ample justification for Trident. But
since the economic downturn I've been thinking. Those counties able to support an open-ended industrial war even though it would bleed them of their
prosperity have been suffering. It has actually been a foretaste, on a greatly reduced scale, of the consequences of industrial war. To my mind the landscape
has changed: the driver for peace is not certain destruction due to nuclear attack (and self destruction through nuclear winter) but a destruction of
prosperity, a prosperity which is now beyond the wildest dreams of those that formulated MAD. So I contend that self-interest will continue to protect peace at
the big nation-level, but this time sparked by prosperity not nuclear destruction.
At the small-nation level it's different; those that have nuclear weapons are potentially dangerous. However the cockpit of conflict has moved to the Middle East and South East Asia and the UK is out of it; ignore the remarks by the Iranian head honcho about UK being the devil - it's 'cos the BBC started Iranian broadcasts into Iran and it's getting up their collective nose. Bearing in mind the above, what in principle should be the UK response? Should we do away with our nuclear insurance policy because it's now not really needed? Answer in my view: No, if we can afford it; Yes, if we can't. It's looking more and more like we can't. For some time it has been clear that a major programme will have to go. Typhoon numbers have been cut but the budget gap remians and set to get worse with a £2bn cut next year. If it is down to CVF or Trident then Trident should go; CVF is by far the more important for UK interests. I realise Brown said the money for Trident would come from outside the Defence budget, but in practice the MoD has had to cough up funds too - how unlike Gordon to go back on his word. It is this element that needs to be clawed back to help save CVF; the rest, the Treasury will no doubt grab. If Trident goes, what would this do to the SSN drumbeat? Will the UK get more SSNs but on an even slower drumbeat in order to preserve skills? |
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 4375 (20-Jun-2009 18:01:40) |
Assuming for the moment the end of a replacement for Trident means an end of Trident as well, we must assume this means the end of the UK having nuclear
weapons and as such the end of the capability to manufacture such....?
----- Now can we afford the Deterrent? Of course we can, we afforded the development of nuclear weapons in circumstances of massive debt, considerable damage to civilian areas, degrees of poverty
frankly not evident today and all while still finding a huge military force and the polcing of the Empire.
|
||
Colin Mc |
|||
|
Posts: 759 (20-Jun-2009 19:14:16) |
I know this might be OT on this thread but it has some relevance:
From a Defence Management article: "Furthermore, Lord Drayson is back at the MoD. The minister for defence research and development has long been rumoured to be a staunch opponent of the JSF and is believed to have favoured walking away from the deal during his time as defence procurement minister. His return to the MoD could signal a shift towards cuts or an all out cancellation of the deal." I never heard that he was against F35. Anybody know what he had in mind? |
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 4376 (20-Jun-2009 19:31:08) |
SuperHornet presumably, navalising Typhoon is fraught with issues and Rafale is limited in terms of numbers supported.
|
||
Anthony58 |
Cuts | ||
|
Posts: 2629 (20-Jun-2009 22:08:49) |
The public finances are a mess, mainly due to Gordon Brown's incompentence, political machinations and to the short term Labour Party's advantage
rather than for the good of the country, so there will be massive cuts in government spending, either Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, will demand it in the
autumn spending round or it will be after the next General Election. The question is how far defence will be affected, as the brunt of cuts will be before
2020, to get spending under control. In particular a non Labour government, will cut wasteful government spending programmes, both in procurement and so called
efficiency revenue contracts and things like tax credits. This has been calculated to save between £50 - 100 billion pounds a year (Channel 4 Dispatches
programme). Trident replacement peak spending will rise post 2020.
Two articles MoD still mum on JSF's futureFriday, June 19, 2009Doubts over the future of the Joint Strike Fighter continue to persist after the MoD refused to give a definitive answer on when the decision to buy the planes will be made. The £2.2bn project is scheduled to see 150 planes purchased for the two new aircraft carriers by 2018. But heavy cost overruns and delays to the US programme have led to doubts here in the UK over whether the MoD can afford to go through with the programme, or purchase all 150 aircraft if it does go ahead with it. In February minister for defence equipment and support Quentin Davies told an audience that a major announcement on the JSFs was forthcoming. Other than the purchase of three test aircraft, the MoD has yet to make any other moves related to the JSF programme. Yesterday Davies refused to set a date for the purchase or confirm whether the full order of 150 JSFs would be bought. In a written Parliamentary answer, he told MPs that "The procurement process for the Joint Strike Fighter remains at a very early stage. We have not taken the final investment decision and at this stage cannot, therefore, confirm overall numbers or the in-service date." The statement is just the latest in a series of comments and incidents that have raised concerns over the future of the JSF. In April Davies refused to tell Defencemanagement.com whether all 150 JSFs would be purchased. He also refused to rule out a Harrier life extension beyond 2018, leading to speculation that the MoD may take this route over purchasing the JSF. Furthermore, Lord Drayson is back at the MoD. The minister for defence research and development has long been rumoured to be a staunch opponent of the JSF and is believed to have favoured walking away from the deal during his time as defence procurement minister. His return to the MoD could signal a shift towards cuts or an all out cancellation of the deal. http://www.defencemanagem...m/news_story.asp?id=9832 A divided houseFriday, June 19, 2009
Bickering and hostility between the services is at an all time high due to the budget constraints. Patrick Macgill looks at the latest in-fighting, its causes and how this is hurting the Armed Forces as a whole. The Armed Forces are on the verge of civil war after the limited defence budget has left the three services fighting for control of minimal funds. For years the MoD has faced a growing shortage of funds thanks to the rising cost of defence inflation, operational demands and small budget increases. But now with the budget crisis reaching a climax, resulting in deep cuts across the services and new restrictions on training and operations in order to save money, hostility and internal bickering are growing. Internal bickering between the services is always commonplace, but the last few months have been different. The comments have become nastier, more direct and most importantly, more public. The MoD faces a budget cut from £38bn to £36bn next year on top of a budget deficit that is already estimated to be at least £1.1bn. The war in Afghanistan led the former Defence Secretary John Hutton to call for funding equipment for current operations to come first and foremost, in other words, primarily land or Army equipment. At the same time the Armed Forces is trying to modernise an aging equipment fleet that was procured during the Cold War when a war with the Soviets seemed inevitable. It is not clear who fired the first shot in the recent service in-fighting. Last month General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, made the first public criticisms of other services' procurement, saying that the Armed Forces was equipping itself with "Cold War relics", a direct shot at the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers and the RAF's Eurofighter Typhoons. The priority should be current operations Sir Richard argued. Meanwhile frustration was growing in the Royal Navy after years of cuts and delays to programmes. In fairness, some of the anger was probably warranted. The Type 45 order has been halved from 12 to 6. The Astute order was reduced from 12 to seven, with more cuts a possibility. The Type 42 fleet has been steadily decommissioned over the last decade without any replacements. Even after the Type 45s are in service the Navy will only have six destroyers compared to the 12 it had 20 years ago. With the new carriers facing delays as well, the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band had seen enough. At first Sir Jonathon seemed willing to adopt the official MoD line on funding. Plenty of Royal Marines and other naval personnel were fighting in Afghanistan and needed excellent equipment as well. But in February he sent mixed messages about cuts to the Royal Navy, telling Defencemanahement.com that it was "a perfectly proper debate to have" on potential cuts to the fleet air arm and that delays were understandable given the need for resources in Afghanistan. In the same conference he also said that as long as he was employed by the Royal Navy he would fight for the two carriers and 150 JSFs and any other relevant capabilities. More cuts and delays were simply unacceptable. Just over three months later, Sir Jonathon attacked the "operations first policy." "I am not volunteering for the second division," he told a RUSI audience last month. "While Afghanistan is rightly our priority, it is not the only show in town." Although never naming Sir Richard, he decried his comments about the carriers being Cold War relics saying they were a "minimalist view". And so it went. But the bickering did not end there. Air chief marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, the chief of the air staff is never one to walk away from a potential fight. It has long been rumoured that he is a ruthless behind the scenes man who has allegedly lobbied for cuts in the other services before the RAF has to make any sort of sacrifices. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Sir Glenn casually predicted that the fleet air arm would eventually be incorporated into the RAF; a sensitive point for the Royal Navy that he knew would surely enrage the admirals. Every military in every democratic country in the world surely witnesses inter service bickering, but not on this scale. What is being said in public is the tip of the iceberg behind the scenes in the planning rounds. They have been described as "the bloodiest ever" by one defence official. Tempers are short and tensions between the services ar high. This in-fighting is hurting the Armed Forces as a whole. Instead of providing a united front that fights for as much money as possible for the military as a whole, the service chiefs have single handily divided the Forces. This has left it easier for MoD officials and their Treasury counterparts to conquer the difficult task of creating a budget. One branch is bound to get a better deal compared to another, making the former more likely to cooperate in budget negotiations. The irony is that the basic war strategy of divide and conquer is being used against the very organisations that practice it. In reality, no one is getting a better deal. The Treasury and the MoD budget department's responsibilities are to create a budget within the spending limits of the comprehensive spending review. Making people or branches of the service happy is a secondary task. Over time cuts and spending limits will be spread through all three branches of the Armed Forces. Having the service chiefs bickering over funding and looking out for their own interests first and foremost only makes the job of a budget director easier. A united Armed Forces at budget time would be harder to overcome politically. The kind of cuts now being implemented would attract more public and parliamentary attention and would encounter more resistance in budget negotiations. Defence cuts by the Treasury could be met with strong public resistance on the same scale as cuts to health or education. But they are not. Liberal Democrat shadow Defence Secretary Nick Harvey called the divide and conquer strategy an "unwise approach to procurement." "We need to look at what is needed for Britain's defence capabilities as a whole within the budgetary constraints. "Tough choices need to be made about the future of Trident and the Tranche 3 Eurofighter. "Meeting one service's wish list at the expense of another's needs is an unwise approach to procurement. "A new Strategic Defence Review is vital to restoring a sense of our immediate and long term priorities and helping us to achieve what is needed for all three services," Harvey said. The next service chiefs may approach the budget differently. For now though the damage has been done. As Abraham Lincoln once said "a house divided against itself cannot stand." http://www.defencemanagem...ature_story.asp?id=12177
Last Edited By: Anthony58
20-Jun-2009 22:11:00.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
jock |
|||
|
Posts: 1129 (20-Jun-2009 23:58:38) |
Instead of building Trident replacements in the UK why not get the Americans to build 3 or 4 more from their production run. Not ideal obviously but the costs
involved would surely be less per unit than the UK building it's own 3 or 4 and thereby making the difference between having SSBN's and not.
|
||
reiverman |
|||
|
Posts: 79 (21-Jun-2009 00:05:25) |
The problem with Trident is that it is neither independent nor is it a deterrent.
Last Edited By: reiverman
21-Jun-2009 00:09:10.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 560 (21-Jun-2009 00:53:18) |
Zen9 wrote:We might get full transfer of source code on Rafale, though. I'm not sure about that for F-18E/F, especially APG-79. |
||
PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 4290 (21-Jun-2009 01:11:36) |
reiverman wrote: Out of interest, what could the US do to prevent the UK from launching once it has the missiles in the tubes?
'We are showing progress. Things are getting worse at a slower rate'
|
||
BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 2186 (21-Jun-2009 07:44:02) |
Bledlow wrote: Nothing in there top secret. Note that EJ200 and CEASAR are designed as near drop in replacements for the F414 and APG-79. Also note the reason that the Rafale exists is the French wouldn't except terms of we take everybody's money, but we get to design and build the jet. |
||
Bre |
Not the best of ideas | ||
|
Posts: 113 (21-Jun-2009 09:28:25) |
Trident, is it worth it?
Is your insurance on your house worth it? Firstly the UK can afford it, we are not as much in the mess as people (and the press) like to claim, yes things look bad when it is presented that way but the UK is allot healthier and wealthier than that (remember it is not just debt but the savings/ resources/wealth/ money to be rapid to us and the ability to finance our debt that determines our finances, not to mention the 'market value' which will improve) . 1) yes it seems expensive when you look at at the overall cost, but is it? The costs being quoted are life long costs so look very scary as a one off payment, but this will be spread over a number of years (house insurance looks scary when you bunch it all together). 2) what are the costs to jobs, support infrastructure? remember the money invested in these projects will trickle back to the Treasury, can we say the same for some of the other hair brained government draining schemes? 3) what is the alternative? I hear people talk of investing more in conventional forces to cover the shortfall but who honestly believes that will happen? Nick Clegg talks of savings but what is the alternative deterrent? How much will be needed to be spent to bring forces levels up to the required balance (and what is that balance?). You cannot do deterrents on the cheap. 4) what is the national cost? Loss of seats on world leadership issues and the possible costs of economic trade benefits that go with this? 5) what is the cost of international security and our safety? Anyone wonder why more and more of the world loonies are fancying their chances with us? Partly due to the fact our defences are in decline and we have a poor government at dealing with international issues, can we defend our territories? 6) what will the world be like in the future? resources are becoming a hot issue, if you look at international politics recently it is like a chess board with major powers making key positions to claim oil/gas and other reserves, do we have a plan to defend those in the future if needed (and can we defend our homeland if that is the case?) 7) can the UK afford to disarm if less desirable states are attempting to acquire such technology (do we want to be in a position where they have the potential to strike at us and we cannot hit back - thus making their life easier to blackmail us in future?) Do we believe that if trident goes, defence is safe from further cuts? what next cvf? escorts, nuclear subs? scrap the lot? we can keep scrapping and cutting our armed forces to nothing, think of the money that will be saved so we can spend even more on the well fare state or NHS or IT projects, after all these areas are always suffering (despite how many billions over how many decades, with no need to really become efficient or improve - wouldn't want the gravy train to stop would we?). After defence has gone we can scrap the police and door locks next. Think of the savings - after all money is the only thing that counts. They cost money and we are all safe according to the law aren't we? In reality we have to have these things as the law doesn't always work and the real world isn't as nice at times as we hope. The same applies to defence. If you can guarantee everyone worldwide is scrapping nukes and the ability to make them, then yes I will agree to see Trident scrapped. Sadly you cannot and the wishful thinking that money will be saved by doing so is off the mark too. The losses from industry, international position (and the associated trade benefits we drive from that), not to mention the increased costs/ risks of having to create a larger armed forces to counter the loss (lets face it who honestly believes the rubbish about the money saved going into the armed forces? They will simply cut the regular budget then by claiming that trident money was used!), not to mention the fact that this is the UK's insurance policy (once gone it will be tough to get back - and will we have the time in future to say to some emerging power when threatened by them 'Can you wait a few years until we are ready to fight you?'). Although it is good and right in a democracy to debate these things I am worried that the RN and UK armed forces isn't fighting the PR war too well compared to other departments. Defence cannot be cut any more, fat has gone, muscle is going and we at the bones. We will pay more in the longer term if this keeps happening (the current defence shortfall is partly due to the short term policy of delays to save cash and now has allowed all the projects to come home at once which sounds economically scary when they should have been spent out over a period of years). There are more wasteful areas of government which should be checked first, and the sacred cows of the Well Fare State and the NHS need to be seriously looked at to start saving and actually delivering for the billions of investment they have had over the many decades. If Trident is to be reviewed then the NHS and Well Fair state are fair game too.
Last Edited By: Bre
21-Jun-2009 13:28:59.
Edited 7 times.
|
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 4377 (21-Jun-2009 12:42:47) |
Todate the only state that has functional resistance to ICBM would be the US, and then in such limited numbers that even our Deterrent is a threat.
But its clear that Russia, China and India are in the varying stages of development of ABM defences, and the US can and will roll out theirs until only mass strikes could overwhelm it. Until then ICBMs are still the top weapon, against which there is no defence, and in their submarine launched form, far beyond detection. What is the alternative to the ICBM? Well there seem two options. 1. the return of the manned bomber, at a high enough and fast enough performance it will be very hard to intercept (ABM being intended to down the reletively unmanouverable RV flying through near vacuum or the upper reaches of the atmosphere). This would require re-inventing the sort of mach3-6 high flying aircraft that where studied from the late 50's to the 60's. Which would be an expensive task, as well as handing the Deterrent over to the RAF, nor would it be stealthy or resistant to a first strike without our own defences including ABM. 2. mass strike with cruise missiles, numbering greater than the ability of the enemy to shoot them down. This requires a huge increase in production of nuclear weapons to arm said huge numbers of cruise missiles. This would really need to be spread to each arm of the military and really requires new longer ranged cruise missiles as well. In conclusion ICBM launched from a submarine looks like the cheapest system for the maximum effectiveness, until ABM systems render this type of attack uneffective. At which point a huge amount of money will have to be spent to shift over to some other system, costing many times that of the submarine launched missile. It may under those circumstances be more affordable to shift to the defensive in the form of comprehensive ABM and SAM systems. |
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 4378 (21-Jun-2009 12:45:02) |
Nothing in there top secret. Note that EJ200 and CEASAR are designed as near drop in replacements for the F414 and APG-79. Also note the reason that the Rafale exists is the French wouldn't except terms of we take everybody's money, but we get to design and build the jet. Euro-Hornet was always a potential danger to the Eurofighter project.
|
||
Bre |
|||
|
Posts: 114 (21-Jun-2009 13:23:10) |
Looking at the alternatives, there simply isn't one currently.
Last Edited By: Bre
21-Jun-2009 13:34:51.
Edited 4 times.
|
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 4379 (21-Jun-2009 14:20:26) |
6 comprehensive defensive systems ABM etc..., a modern day Maginot Line as it where and with all the risks of a Belgium sized hole due to cost constraints.
As for warhead numbers I'm less than convinced we have enough now, the cuts have been for political image reasons and to hell with the military calculations, is my impression. Make no mistake the SSBN and SLBM has a limited shelf life. The reality is there is no cheap option, no low cost solution and even a total end of the Deterrent will only save money in a very short term sense if at all, once you factor in decomissioning, clean up and dismantlement of the infrastructure. In then end we will pay, either in sweat of our labours to afford something or in blood because we did'nt sweat enough. |
||