British Suicide Lethal Defence Policy Under Labour Government

[overlander]

as recent events demonstrate in afghanistan and irak with the loss of 14 lives in nimrod crash, every day in afghanistan 2 or 3 british soldiers die, many observers say that because of shortage of equipment, recently british m.o.d. ordered urgently new equipment as pathfinder armed trucks, aroured vehicles etc because they recognized this shortage of equipment, under labour governments britain has suffered different heavy cuts in the armed forces here are a resume of the main cuts in the the last 8-9 years.

army.
reductions of at least 15 battallions, reductions of at least 150 challenger m.b.t. reduction of at least 600 armoured vehicles, withdrawal of saxon armoured carrier, etc.

r.a.f.

reduction of at least 150 front line warplanes from 1997, including cuts in the numbers of tornado gr-1 gr-4, tornado f-3. withdrawal of all jaguars, etc. reduction in the orders for new equipment for example the number of orders for jsf reduced from planned 150 to only 100, eurofighter typhoon will be cutted form a planned number of 235 to only 167, the tranche 3 will be cancelled.



royal navy

reduction in the escort force from 1997 from 35 to 25, withdrawal of sea harriers, early retirement of hms invincible at present only one carrier operational hms illustrious with hms ark royal in long refit, reduction in the number of royal marines from 7100 to 5600, possible (not confirmed) cancellation of the proposed 2 new cvf queen elizabeth class carriers reduction of new air defence destroyers type 45 from proposed 12 to only 6, reduction in the rfa strenght from 21 ro 15 auxiliary ships, reduction in the mcm force fron 28 to only 15 vessels.

but being these heavy cuts the main problems is that british government put more commitments than before for the armed forces, deployments in afghanistan and irak overstrechted the forces, they are short of equipment and they died in a number growing and growing, of course i doubt very much that if the government change to conversative party it will change nothing as this a defect of all british politicians, i think that if british politicians are not able to maintain a decent armed forces with enough budget and determination to equip correctly they mush to cancell all expenses in defence withdrawal all forces and make britian a country wihout armed forces like for example costa rica rather than putting in risk the lives of british soldiers because they have not enough material to fight, this way money for defenced can be dedicated to health, schools, etc, as some british retired officers say better to have nothing that a british armed forces more and more reduced, not to mention that rumours in britain say that another heavy cut in defence is preparing, gordon brown needs to cut another 1 blln pounds from defence budget and this can include the cancellation of the 2 new proposed carriers, we will see.

 

[TrangleC]

I always wondered how Brittain can affort such a relatively big armed force.
Aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, the biggest order of the most expensive variant of the Typhoon + Joint Strike Fighters + new stealth destroyers and whatelse, while Germany, still being a considerably bigger economy, struggling so hard with every new purchase of military equipment and never would even consider something like an own aircraft carrier.

 

[Sea Toby]

While the British Empire is no more, many of its links to her commonwealth nations still exists at the corporate and business levels. The British have a very good sense of the world being actively involved, whereas many nations aren't as engaged in the world's affairs. There are probably more British citizens living abroad than any other nation. On top of this many of the world's leaders, both political, military, and in business, have been educated in British colleges and schools. For example, an Oxford scholarship is considered precious by many abroad unmatched by any other college in any other nation, former President Bill Clinton and Senator J. William Fulbright were Oxford scholars.

 

[icelord]

While the British Empire is no more, many of its links to her commonwealth nations still exists at the corporate and business levels. The British have a very good sense of the world being actively involved, whereas many nations aren't as engaged in the world's affairs. There are probably more British citizens living abroad than any other nation.

That and the fact there are a ton of Aussie Expats running Uk Businesses, giving back to Motherland

The POMs are having a huge problem with gear, but the cuts to many RAF and RN major projects just don't seem to be getting back to the Armies Gear. With the cancellation of the budgetted AWD and perhaps their future CVF this allocated money should make it back to the Army in weapons, vehicles and standard Equipment, but Labour know when thier defeated, so why spend money that won't save you.

 

[TrangleC]

While the British Empire is no more, many of its links to her commonwealth nations still exists at the corporate and business levels. The British have a very good sense of the world being actively involved, whereas many nations aren't as engaged in the world's affairs. There are probably more British citizens living abroad than any other nation. On top of this many of the world's leaders, both political, military, and in business, have been educated in British colleges and schools. For example, an Oxford scholarship is considered precious by many abroad unmatched by any other college in any other nation, former President Bill Clinton and Senator J. William Fulbright were Oxford scholars.

OK, but i still don't see how that enables them to spend so much money on military.
Judging from the little i know i wouldn't be surprised to hear that GB spends more on new weapons than Japan and Germany together.

I know, they spend less on social things than other european countries do, but still....

 

[Big-E]

OK, but i still don't see how that enables them to spend so much money on military.
Judging from the little i know i wouldn't be surprised to hear that GB spends more on new weapons than Japan and Germany together.

I know, they spend less on social things than other european countries do, but still....

Germany spends more on defense than GB does.

 

[Grand Danois]

Defense expenditure 2005

United Kingdom / Pounds sterling / 27916 million = 40199 €

Germany / Euro / 30435 million €

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p05-161.pdf

 

[Big-E]

Defense expenditure 2005

United Kingdom / Pounds sterling / 27916 million = 40199 €

Germany / Euro / 30435 million €

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p05-161.pdf

conversion rates... doh!

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, but I think both nations have been very close for years, and from one year to another. This is from the CIA website:

1 United States $ 518,100,000,000 2005 est.
2 China $ 81,470,000,000 2005 est.
3 France $ 45,000,000,000 2005
4 Japan $ 44,310,000,000 2005 est.
5 United Kingdom $ 42,836,500,000 2005 est.
6 Germany $ 35,063,000,000 2003
7 Italy $ 28,182,800,000 2003
8 Korea, South $ 21,050,000,000 2005 est.
9 India $ 19,040,000,000 2005 est.
10 Saudi Arabia $ 18,000,000,000 2005 est.

Its just that the United Kingdom has decided to spend more funds for expeditionary forces whereas Germany has decided NOT to spend more funds for expeditionary forces. I'm sure Germany could afford a carrier and landing ships if they decided to either cut some of their air force wings and/or army divisons. Germany has land borders with many nations whereas the United Kingdom is an island nation, whose only land border is with Ireland.

As I noted before on this thread, while Germany may have a few businessmen living abroad, for every one German the British will have at least ten more. There are many British expats living in the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia. That is the reason for more expeditionary forces.

 

[contedicavour]

I think the key topic in this thread is the gap between foreign affairs policy and the unaffordability of the defence spending it implies.
While this may be obvious in the UK example, it is unfortunately very common. With the Italian defence budget reduced to 1% of GDP (it even fell at one moment to 0.84% but luckily some more was restored, as the 400million euro 2 months ago) after years of promises of raising it to 1.5%, a leftist government is getting our armed forces busy simultaneously in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Bosnia & Kosovo, even in Sudan !! while we aren't even out of Iraq yet.

cheers

 

[Padfoot]

as recent events demonstrate in afghanistan and irak with the loss of 14 lives in nimrod crash, every day in afghanistan 2 or 3 british soldiers die, many observers say that because of shortage of equipment, recently british m.o.d. ordered urgently new equipment as pathfinder armed trucks, aroured vehicles etc because they recognized this shortage of equipment, under labour governments britain has suffered different heavy cuts in the armed forces here are a resume of the main cuts in the the last 8-9 years.

army.
reductions of at least 15 battallions, reductions of at least 150 challenger m.b.t. reduction of at least 600 armoured vehicles, withdrawal of saxon armoured carrier, etc.

r.a.f.

reduction of at least 150 front line warplanes from 1997, including cuts in the numbers of tornado gr-1 gr-4, tornado f-3. withdrawal of all jaguars, etc. reduction in the orders for new equipment for example the number of orders for jsf reduced from planned 150 to only 100, eurofighter typhoon will be cutted form a planned number of 235 to only 167, the tranche 3 will be cancelled.



royal navy

reduction in the escort force from 1997 from 35 to 25, withdrawal of sea harriers, early retirement of hms invincible at present only one carrier operational hms illustrious with hms ark royal in long refit, reduction in the number of royal marines from 7100 to 5600, possible (not confirmed) cancellation of the proposed 2 new cvf queen elizabeth class carriers reduction of new air defence destroyers type 45 from proposed 12 to only 6, reduction in the rfa strenght from 21 ro 15 auxiliary ships, reduction in the mcm force fron 28 to only 15 vessels.

but being these heavy cuts the main problems is that british government put more commitments than before for the armed forces, deployments in afghanistan and irak overstrechted the forces, they are short of equipment and they died in a number growing and growing, of course i doubt very much that if the government change to conversative party it will change nothing as this a defect of all british politicians, i think that if british politicians are not able to maintain a decent armed forces with enough budget and determination to equip correctly they mush to cancell all expenses in defence withdrawal all forces and make britian a country wihout armed forces like for example costa rica rather than putting in risk the lives of british soldiers because they have not enough material to fight, this way money for defenced can be dedicated to health, schools, etc, as some british retired officers say better to have nothing that a british armed forces more and more reduced, not to mention that rumours in britain say that another heavy cut in defence is preparing, gordon brown needs to cut another 1 blln pounds from defence budget and this can include the cancellation of the 2 new proposed carriers, we will see.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure what a Nimrod crash has to do with the defence budget. The reason the British are taking casualties in Afghanistan is because they're on the frontline doing the fighting. Also, you have to factor in the calculation that most criticism of defence spending comes from the British tabloids - they are'nt what you would call 'astute'. Not surprising really as sagaciousness does'nt sell newspapers. You have to remember that everything the armed forces are getting is bigger and better,for example, Tonnage in the RN will be much larger than anytime since WW2.

Toby is correct, the British tend to spend their money on expeditionary warfare(they last fought a foreign foe on British soil in 1066), therefore they need a relatively small army. Germany and France have much larger armies(x3?) yet could not match Britain in a far flung war, ergo defence budgets can be very misleading.


One other point. The CVF will not be cancelled and there will be 8 type 45's. Most nations would kill for this.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

One other point. The CVF will not be cancelled and there will be 8 type 45's. Most nations would kill for this.

That is what we're hoping will be the case. But the budget is under a lot of pressure at the moment because of the continuing deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do think defence spending does need to be increased somewhat. Whether it's because of operations or the fact Geoff Hoon was a complete moron and ordered too many Typhoons, the fact is more money is needed.

Maybe the government should pass a special budget ammendment that gives the MoD a few extra billion to pay for outstanding costs, clearing the way for regular money to be spent on the RN's necessary purchases.

 

[RubiconNZ]

One other point. The CVF will not be cancelled and there will be 8 type 45's. Most nations would kill for this.

CVF I agree with, However only 6 45's are scheduled yet and despite the previous cut 12 to 8, in a budget pinch 6 is a number that might end up sticking.

 

[contedicavour]

CVF I agree with, However only 6 45's are scheduled yet and despite the previous cut 12 to 8, in a budget pinch 6 is a number that might end up sticking.

Beyond sheer numbers, what would also be worrysome is a further reduction of each ship's capabilities. The T45s are coming out with only Asters, no CIWS other than "fitted for but not with" good old Phalanx... French and Italian Horizons carry either Sadral or guided-ammunition 76/62SR Strales systems. Not to mention ASW and SSMs.

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Beyond sheer numbers, what would also be worrysome is a further reduction of each ship's capabilities. The T45s are coming out with only Asters, no CIWS other than "fitted for but not with" good old Phalanx... French and Italian Horizons carry either Sadral or guided-ammunition 76/62SR Strales systems. Not to mention ASW and SSMs.

First of all, I believe they will be fitted with Phalanx, which will be taken from the Manchesters. What's the point in buying new CIWS when we have them already? But we can't strip our existing destroyers while they're still in service.

Second, the Type-45 was never designed to be an ASW or ASuW platform. It's for fleet defence, pure and simple. And in that role it will excell more than perhaps anything else afloat. We have frigates to do other jobs. If you look at the Type-42 it pretty much had a single role as well.

 

[contedicavour]

First of all, I believe they will be fitted with Phalanx, which will be taken from the Manchesters. What's the point in buying new CIWS when we have them already? But we can't strip our existing destroyers while they're still in service.

Second, the Type-45 was never designed to be an ASW or ASuW platform. It's for fleet defence, pure and simple. And in that role it will excell more than perhaps anything else afloat. We have frigates to do other jobs. If you look at the Type-42 it pretty much had a single role as well.

You are right, but back then there were 12 dedicated AAW T42s, 28 ASW/ASUW FFGs, and 3 (though small) carriers.
In a navy with 2 (though huge) carriers, 6 DDGs and 20 FFGs, you may wish to have more multi-purpose assets available, as even the best ships cannot be at more than one place at the same time
Regarding pure AAW, the T45s have that great Sampson radar and our beloved Aster 15/30s, but good old Phalanx is a bit outdated vs latest versions of RAM or our guided ammo extended range artillery systems...

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

you may wish to have more multi-purpose assets available

What would you prefer? 6-8 platforms that can do the job they were designed to do properly (with room to put more on), or maybe 4 that can do some other things as well? If the Treasury forces the RN to have 6 Type-45s, why do you think they'd cough up the money for a Phalanx replacement, let alone Harpoon, ship-launched torpedoes, etc?

Personally I would prefer 6-8 Type-45s. Yes, we had more Type-42s in the past, but to be quite honest it's a really, really bad platform for what we need today. On the other hand the Type-45 will work much, much better so we don't need quite so many of them, even if 12 would have been wonderful.

I'm not sure in what scenario a Type-45 would need to conduct ASW/ASuW by itself. We wouldn't let it go wandering off by itself into a war zone. Even small countries that chip in the odd frigate only do so when it's going to be part of a larger taskforce. The only time you send individual ships off is for humanitarian missions and there's little or no threat of attack.

Regarding pure AAW, the T45s have that great Sampson radar and our beloved Aster 15/30s, but good old Phalanx is a bit outdated vs latest versions of RAM or our guided ammo extended range artillery systems...cheers

We tried SeaRAM, but at the time it wasn't viable versus small combatant suicide boats, which was a concern since the USN had to deal with a similar attack. Maybe it will be purchased in the future when we're sure it will do everything we'd need it to.

Besides, if a missile slips through two layers of Asters it's debatable that SeaRAM will stop it whereas Phalanx won't.

 

[contedicavour]

I guess it's a matter of national naval strategy. Historically the Italian Navy has preferred having lower numbers of multi-purpose vessels because each FFG or DDG (or even a cruiser or a carrier) should be able to fight on its own if needed.
That probably went back to Cold War time when attacks could have come from the other side of the Adriatic or of the Mediterranean - hence no time to prepare a serious battle group with specialized ships getting together.
The RN primarily had to run ASW operations and organise amphibious task forces to support Norway or Iceland, hence may be this more "task force/battle group" logic.
Curious to see how the past influences today's procurement & planning.

cheers

 

[overlander]

answering to musashi, by now only 6 type 45,s are ordered, everything indicates that only 6 will be built from 12 planned, and concerning to cvf, many naval british journalist suchc as richard beedall, paul beaver, etc agree that finally only 1 cvf will be built due to lack of funds, greetings.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

answering to musashi, by now only 6 type 45,s are ordered, everything indicates that only 6 will be built from 12 planned

Maybe. But if 6 is the final number, as I said, where is the money for the capability upgrades going to come from? By selling one off to someone/not building the last one!!! So I would prefer keeping all of them for the RN.

Maybe you need to read people's posts more carefully, or simply read them at all. :

concerning to cvf, many naval british journalist suchc as richard beedall, paul beaver, etc agree that finally only 1 cvf will be built due to lack of funds

And other commentators say that they think 2 will be ordered, because the MoD knows 1 will be next to useless and still a big waste of money. It will be 2 now, or none now with the money put aside to allow a later purchase.