UK must slash defence spending

#1
UK 'must slash defence spending'

Costs of two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy have risen 25%
The UK should consider slashing defence spending by up to £24bn and revisit plans to renew its Trident nuclear deterrent, a think-tank report says.
Britain cannot afford much of the defence equipment it plans to buy, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report says.
Its authors include former defence secretary Lord Robertson and the ex-Lib Dem leader, Lord Ashdown.
It comes after news of a £1bn cost overrun on two new aircraft carriers.
The original budget for the two carriers for the Royal Navy was £3.9bn but the BBC has seen a memorandum revealing the programme will come under "severe pressure" because of the cost escalation.
The head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, has previously defended the new carriers from accusations they were outdated "Cold War relics".
More on the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8125466.stm
 
#2
Isn't the defence budget £36bn? so the Forces would be left with around £12bn a year? or am i being a mong.
 
#4
Think tank maps out future UK defence

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

The report wants the Trident replacement plan to be reviewed
A report by defence experts for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has called for radical changes in British security and defence policy.
The think tank's report is basically a plea that Britain should stop punching "above its weight" and start punching at its proper, much lighter, weight.
The report should be seen as part of a sequence since World War Two in which Britain has had to adjust its defence policy to fit its diminishing place in the world, often against resistance from entrenched political, military and industrial interests.
The IPPR predicts that the US will soon no longer be the "single superpower" but will remain the one with the "greatest overall impact".
As for the Europeans, it says: "The individual countries of Europe, including the United Kingdom, are... continuing a long and gradual process of decline."
More on the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8124108.stm
 
#5
So we would kiss goodbye to our UN seat (as much as that's worth) if we lost trident.

Greater specialisation in the UK armed forces, investing in high quality personnel training, tactical ground-air support, and intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance assets. However, it does recommend an increase in the size of the British forces from 98,000 to 115-120,000.

- More special forces to deal with a Mumbai-type attack in the UK.

- Scaling back some conventional capability led by cutbacks in planned areas of defence spending costing £24bn - aircraft carriers, joint strike fighter, Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines "should all be in the frame".
So increase the Green army, but cut back on the navy and it's force protection capabilities so what happens when the army needs to go somewhere that is not near it's bases? i guess you just hop on BA and get a flight next door.
 
#6
Markintime said:
Why do I think that all this is leading towards joining a European Army / Air Force / Navy and just maintaining a small National Defence Force something like the US National Guard?
Because if the globalists get their way national armies/navies,etc will become a thing of the past-only sufficient forces to maintain internal security will be needed.
 
#7
Shared Responsibilities
A national security strategy for the UK
ISBN: 9781860303258
Author: ippr Commission on National Security in the 21st Century
Contributors:
Price: £15.99
Publication Date: 30 June 2009

This is the final report of the ippr Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, an all-party Commission preparing an independent national security strategy for the United Kingdom. Based on research and Commission deliberations over a two-year period, the report sets out a wide range of proposals designed to make our country and its citizens, businesses, and communities more secure.

Our recommendations include:

A new approach to the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Proposals to improve the UK’s energy security

Measures to address radicalisation and the threat of terrorism here in the UK

The call for a transformation in our approach to defence policy, and measures to strengthen both NATO and the European pillar of the transatlantic alliance

Measures to strengthen and improve the institutions handling security at the centre of government
Proposals for improved global governanceM

A call to strengthen and deepen the legitimacy of the security strategy we pursue.

Our report, as with our interim report, Shared Destinies: Security in a Globalised World, is a call to action. We face serious and worsening international security challenges but provided we are willing to learn lessons, to change the way we think, to find the necessary political will and to adapt our policy solutions and instruments to new circumstances, there is much that can be done. In the post 9/11, post financial crisis world of complex threats and limited national resources, this report charts a safer course for the country in turbulent times.

Link to full report

http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=676
 
#8
Ah, another one of those reports that somehow we'll be better off by weakening ourselves and reducing our international influence further- I especially loved that bit about 'The Individual countries of europe...are continuing a long and gradual process of decline' ah yes, lets accelerate the process why not? Its utter rubbish, we spend 5 times of paying people to sit on their arrrses via the welfare state that we do on defence- maybe the report should read 'If this country wasn't run by ignorant buffoons who think its acceptable to have 57% of the population dependant of government largess, we could afford whatever we wanted'. This report actually adovocates us moving into closer alliance with countries it reckons are in decline, and away from the worlds only surviving superpower, its rot...
 
#11
I was surprised that the outrage bus had not yet managed to mention "third world army", "gendarmerie" "Britain is an island" etc etc. Would normally have expected those old chestnuts by now.
whf
 
#12
wehappyfew said:
I was surprised that the outrage bus had not yet managed to mention "third world army", "gendarmerie" "Britain is an island" etc etc. Would normally have expected those old chestnuts by now.
whf
And why not? Thats the way we're headed! Some outrage, especially about how this country is being run into the ground, is necessary. Going 'oooh, outrage bus, out rage bus!' is becoming a lazy way to smother debate ...
 
#13
Surfer_Smithy said:
Greater specialisation in the UK armed forces, investing in high quality personnel training, tactical ground-air support, and intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance assets. However, it does recommend an increase in the size of the British forces from 98,000 to 115-120,000.

- More special forces to deal with a Mumbai-type attack in the UK.

- Scaling back some conventional capability led by cutbacks in planned areas of defence spending costing £24bn - aircraft carriers, joint strike fighter, Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines "should all be in the frame".
So increase the Green army, but cut back on the navy and it's force protection capabilities so what happens when the army needs to go somewhere that is not near it's bases? i guess you just hop on BA and get a flight next door.
When did we last use navy's force protection capability?
 
#14
wehappyfew said:
I was surprised that the outrage bus had not yet managed to mention "third world army", "gendarmerie" "Britain is an island" etc etc. Would normally have expected those old chestnuts by now.
whf
Haven't found the link yet but I saw Blair on panorama last night saying just that. Apparantly we are nothing in the world compared to India and China who will carve up the world with the US and of course Europe will have a much bigger say in how our forces are best deployed in the future.
This is the same person who led the world into terrorist appeasement, the only way he can be stopped is by a bullet between the eyes.
:x
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#15
subrosa said:
Surfer_Smithy said:
Greater specialisation in the UK armed forces, investing in high quality personnel training, tactical ground-air support, and intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance assets. However, it does recommend an increase in the size of the British forces from 98,000 to 115-120,000.

- More special forces to deal with a Mumbai-type attack in the UK.

- Scaling back some conventional capability led by cutbacks in planned areas of defence spending costing £24bn - aircraft carriers, joint strike fighter, Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines "should all be in the frame".
So increase the Green army, but cut back on the navy and it's force protection capabilities so what happens when the army needs to go somewhere that is not near it's bases? i guess you just hop on BA and get a flight next door.
When did we last use navy's force protection capability?
2003?
 
#16
subrosa said:
Surfer_Smithy said:
Greater specialisation in the UK armed forces, investing in high quality personnel training, tactical ground-air support, and intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance assets. However, it does recommend an increase in the size of the British forces from 98,000 to 115-120,000.

- More special forces to deal with a Mumbai-type attack in the UK.

- Scaling back some conventional capability led by cutbacks in planned areas of defence spending costing £24bn - aircraft carriers, joint strike fighter, Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines "should all be in the frame".
So increase the Green army, but cut back on the navy and it's force protection capabilities so what happens when the army needs to go somewhere that is not near it's bases? i guess you just hop on BA and get a flight next door.
When did we last use navy's force protection capability?
Ehhh,

Last month, on the Shaat al Arab as I recall... (Covering port movements at As Zubir)

Anyway, only Tossers use the "when did we last..." argument to plan defense. Proper security assessments look at required capabilities.
 
#17
Bradstyley said:
wehappyfew said:
I was surprised that the outrage bus had not yet managed to mention "third world army", "gendarmerie" "Britain is an island" etc etc. Would normally have expected those old chestnuts by now.
whf
And why not? Thats the way we're headed! Some outrage, especially about how this country is being run into the ground, is necessary. Going 'oooh, outrage bus, out rage bus!' is becoming a lazy way to smother debate ...
Bradstyley - fair enough,

I had a few other things that I needed to crack on with this morning and so couldn't be arrsed to get into it, but you are right. What this report and the Richards and Dannatt speeches from last week's RUSI highlight is that the UK - even with an uplift in Defence spending can not manage to keep in the 1st XI for the 4 main capabilities; SND, expeditionary army, navy and air forces. You therefore face some tough choices; increase Defence spending to allow us to keep up in all 4 areas (At a guestimate we would need to double GDP defence spending or thereabouts); continue to keep salami slicing the 3 services so that the "equal pain for all" cry is allowed, or look at taking some big decisions in one of the 4 areas.

Now it seems that the SND is more of a political choice for the UK for all of the reasons that other posters have covered in other threads vis a vis P5, national influence etc etc so that one - for the moment - is closed off. You are then left with choices about which of the Services to whack. Now we can all make arguments for scenarios where an expeditionary Navy and Air Force would be helpful and could enable the UK to assist the US in conducting some high end operation against an as yet unforseen opponent at some point several decades away. Additionally, you can make arguments for how how Carrier and JSF, supported by typhoon et al could contribute to land operations. The problem with that argument is that we currently have about 20 (guess but probably not much more) FJs actively supporting our troops on the ground and not many surface ships. Yes, the AT and SH fleet from the RAF are working hard and we should have far more of each (at the expense of the FJ fleet), and yes, Royal is digging out blind on current ops and presumably some bits of the RN are in support. However, the Army has been hugely disinvested in for the last decade and we have only managed to mask the equipment shortfalls through UOR action. This isn't the way to run a war.

So am I outraged - yes; but not at the level of Defence spending. We get as much as we are going to get given the current political, economic and security climate. Wishing or agitating for more is not going to help the blokes in contact on a daily basis. What would help them would be an MOD which was able to make some hard choices about what it can afford and then look to implement that. UK Defence being bled to death due to the equal pain for all argument and salami slicing is the worst of all worlds.
whf
 
#18
The Septics use the Force Protection/Projection capabilities of their Navy for Afghanistan-based forces. Why do we always have to degenerate into this Single Service money grabbing debate? A properly balanced, financed and supported Armed Forces with the ability not only to defend the UK but also to project force around the globe iaw a long term defence/foreign policy strategy is what we need.

Concentrating on the current risk is the same mistake made during the late 70s, as clever as we all are we can't see into the future!
 
#19
HE117 said:
subrosa said:
Surfer_Smithy said:
Greater specialisation in the UK armed forces, investing in high quality personnel training, tactical ground-air support, and intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance assets. However, it does recommend an increase in the size of the British forces from 98,000 to 115-120,000.

- More special forces to deal with a Mumbai-type attack in the UK.

- Scaling back some conventional capability led by cutbacks in planned areas of defence spending costing £24bn - aircraft carriers, joint strike fighter, Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines "should all be in the frame".
So increase the Green army, but cut back on the navy and it's force protection capabilities so what happens when the army needs to go somewhere that is not near it's bases? i guess you just hop on BA and get a flight next door.
When did we last use navy's force protection capability?
Ehhh,

Last month, on the Shaat al Arab as I recall... (Covering port movements at As Zubir)

Anyway, only Tossers use the "when did we last..." argument to plan defense. Proper security assessments look at required capabilities.
HE117,

You are right, it is a poor argument. However, equally poor is looking at required capabilities because that is also a sterile argument. We can argue that we require all capabilities;

a couple of carriers with sufficient JSF and supporting surface fleet to allow proper power projection for a maritime and expeditionary nation;

an air force which has the latest OCA and DCA capabilities and which can contribute air power across the spectrum;

and finally land forces which can engage at Large Scale in a conventional setting to defeat a high-end peer opponent whilst being able to conduct the equally tricky tasks with which we are currently faced

(I don't think I have missed out any of the "required capabilities", but add some others in if I have.)

But.........we don't have the money for all of the required capabilites, so you have to engage in prioritising and considering which capabilities will have utility for the most likely occurrences in the future. I wish it wasn't so but it is.
whf
 
#20
Here we go again another excuse to cut the armed forces again. :x .punching above our weight pah :x .
we dont we havent and we never will with all these lilly livered lefties running the country.Its all a matter of priority the armed forces need more money :x are we not in the G8 one of the richest nations on earth we seem to be emulating american society more and more well lets start emulating there view of the forces and security spend more money on them and not on single effing parents and effing layabouts on the rock n roll god i am effing fuming of what this country is becoming.i would love to get my hands on these lot of traitors necks.for jeopardizing our security and of this country thats what they are :x . effing hell :x ok rant over for now.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads