Tag Archives: Strategic Defence and Security Review

Defence, Government, Military, National Security, Politics, Society

Britain’s Military and the 2015 Defence Review…

(From the archives) Originally posted on January 23, 2013 by markdowe

 2015 SECURITY & DEFENCE REVIEW

Intro:-

David Cameron should use the next defence review in 2015 to develop a more ambitious strategy that builds on the unrivalled skills of our Armed Forces. Give the Armed Forces the support they need

Following the hostage crisis in Algeria and Britain’s support for French intervention in Mali, David Cameron warned the House of Commons on Monday that this country faces an existential threat from al-Qaeda and its affiliates: we must steel ourselves, he said, for a “generational struggle” that could last for decades. Yesterday, the Government announced the latest tranche of military cuts, with 5,300 jobs to go in the Army, many through compulsory redundancy. The Ministry of Defence also confirmed that soldiers serving in Afghanistan are likely to be sacked when the fourth and final round of cuts is implemented in a year or so.

Such infelicitous timing has served to raise renewed doubts about the extent to which the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review can meet the challenges outlined by the Prime Minister. When he published that review, Mr Cameron insisted it was not simply a cost-cutting exercise, but was about “taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead”. That is not how it is working out. As he has shown in Mali and in Libya, Mr Cameron is prepared to intervene militarily in distant conflicts if he deems it to be in Britain’s national interest. Yet he is reluctant to will the means. Many analysts have long argued that to protect any government budget is a mistake at a time when spending needs to be reined in everywhere – but to safeguard departments such as health and international development while leaving defence to face the axe is positively perverse. The same sentiments were expressed yesterday by Lord West, the former security minister.

Our military clout is one of the reasons this country punches above its weight globally. The values we espouse as a mature liberal democracy are widely admired, and the fact that we are ready to fight for them if necessary is important. But as General Stanley McChrystal, America’s former commander in Afghanistan has previously warned, Britain will be shut out of key decisions if it does not maintain a credible capability.

Mr Cameron cannot have it both ways. Either he must restrain his ambitions and accept that Britain is destined to become just another middle-ranking European power, or he should use the next defence review in 2015 to develop a more ambitious strategy that builds on the unrivalled skills of our Armed Forces. We should favour the second course. Britain is in danger of losing the ability to fight alone – without ever having had a proper discussion about whether that is something we can or should live with. In a dangerous world, that leaves us ill-prepared to cope with the unexpected.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Military, United States

A replacement for the Nimrod. The search is on…

DEFENCE

Four years ago, Britain scrapped its Nimrod maritime surveillance aircraft. But the issue of whether an island nation needs a plane to patrol its waters remains.

The Ministry of Defence cancelled the Nimrod’s replacement as part of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), citing the need to cut costs. The decision, however, meant Britain lost a crucial ability to monitor the threat from foreign submarines in its territory.

There have been reports of Russian vessels mooring and sending sailors ashore to enjoy local hospitality – all without being tracked by the UK military, the security implications of which should be clear.

Some aspects of the Nimrod’s function have continued, using surface ships, the RAF’s E3D Sentry aircraft and helicopters.

But much of what the Nimrod was good at has been lost – particularly the ability to detect small objects on the sea’s surface, such as submarine periscopes.

That Britain has no suitable maritime patrol aircraft capability is viewed by some defence analysts as a ‘national disgrace’. As a minimum, Britain needs to be able to monitor what goes on within the UK search and rescue area – no small task given it covers 2m square miles of sea.

A typical mission for these aircraft lasts eight hours before refuelling is required.

However, if rumblings from within Whitehall and industry are to be believed the gap left by the Nimrod could soon be filled.

Prior to Philip Hammond leaving Defence to become Foreign Secretary in the recent UK Government reshuffle, Mr Hammond is said to have privately given ‘top priority’ to the project, insisting that it be contained within the 2015 SDSR.

Analysts estimate that plugging this gap will cost around £2bn. Once funding is assigned, it could go into the MoD budget cycle for 2016 with an aircraft in service by the end of the decade.

The MoD is keen to emphasise that the first question is just what is required. Only then can the machine and sensors that will provide the surveillance be considered. One idea is some form of multi-mission aircraft that can be used for maritime patrol, intelligence gathering, airborne command and control and even in some transport capacity.

The current favourite appears to be the P8 Poseidon made by US aerospace giant Boeing – effectively a militarised 737 passenger jet. Instead of seats, the P8 would be packed with sensors and equipment used to track submarines or missing surface ships.

British crewmen are already flying on the P8 aircraft to maintain their skills. As defence secretary, Mr Hammond also visited a P8 squadron in America and is said to have been impressed.

Other ideas include packing the fuselage of Lockheed Martin’s rugged C-130 Hercules transport aircraft with high-tech sensors and turning it into a maritime patrol specialist.

Northrup Grumman, another US defence firm, would like to see its drones used to monitor the ocean from high up and then send specialist reconnaissance aircraft in to check on possible discoveries closer to the surface.

Just how many aircraft will eventually be needed is another moot point. Analysts suggest a minimum of 12, given some aircraft will inevitably be in maintenance, some used for training and others deployed overseas at any one time.

But senior industry executives believe the MoD’s decision is also about the continued viability of Britain’s defence industry.

Buying off the shelf might be seen as ‘cheaper’, but if the domestic capability to design and manufacture military equipment is lost it will leave the nation’s security at the mercy of foreign powers.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, Foreign Affairs, Government, Military, National Security, NATO, Politics, Society, United States

Being prepared for war is essential, but war is not cheap…

ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE STUDY

A study released by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) shows that Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost the UK Treasury more than £29 billion. In the report, the think tank argues that the wars were “strategic blunders, spreading terrorism, drumming up resistance and increasing the opium trade”.

The conclusions, though, are controversial. For instance, the authors of the study assert that various terrorist groups would not be infiltrating Syria or threatening Britain had Saddam Hussein stayed in power. Yet, Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant and despot, who clearly acted as a state sponsor of terror. Tens of thousands of lives were lost, thousands more were gassed in ethnic style cleansing in northern Iraq, and Saddam Hussein would certainly have had vast stockpiles of nerve and chemical agents at his disposal left over from his 8-years war with Iran. Many of these stockpiles still remain unaccounted for. Had Hussein not been toppled he doubtless would have continued to persecute his own population. The tyrant’s bloody wars against the Kurds in the north and Arab populations of the south should never be forgotten.

Putting aside the arguments about Britain’s role in the ‘War on Terror’, one uncontroversial fact emerges from the report which is indisputable: war is not cheap. The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) has witnessed massive cuts to our Armed Forces budget. Army numbers have been drastically cut back, aircraft have been withdrawn, tank battalions diminished, and even our last aircraft carrier decommissioned. Further cuts are imminent. Many of these cuts are being justified by the theory that we would never have to engage in the variety of long-term overseas military adventures that typified our activities and engagements during the Cold War era.

Since 2001, however, we have actually been involved in two such operations at a significant cost. And within the last few days, President Barack Obama announced that he would like America to act more as part of an international coalition rather than taking unilateral action. This implies, at least, a continued British role in Western security.

The UK has to be prepared for all eventualities, and adequate contingencies should be in place. As relations with Russia continue to worsen, for example, it might prove necessary for the UK to play a part in the wider campaign of checking Vladimir Putin’s belligerence. Only last month, Britain sent four Typhoon fighter jets to the Baltics as part of a NATO deployment, a sign that the West is unwilling to allow Europe to disintegrate at the hands of the Russian president. Nobody wants a conflict, but the potential for a tough offence remains the best defence.

Standard