UK's Armed Forces facing Cuts?

[buglerbilly]

RUSI Future Defence Review Paper: UK’s Armed Forces Face Personnel Cuts of 20% Over Next Six Years

(Source: Royal United Services Institute, RUSI; issued Jan. 12, 2010)

The growing costs of UK defence capabilities, combined with cuts in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget as a result of the nation's fiscal crisis, will make it impossible to preserve current numbers of service personnel and front-line capabilities, according to a Future Defence Review Working Paper from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

“Capability Cost Trends: Implications for the Defence Review”, a new RUSI report written by Professor Malcolm Chalmers, suggests the UK's number of trained service personnel is projected to fall by around 20%: from 175,000 in 2010 to around 142,000 in 2016. This is the probable result of a projected cut in the defence budget of around 10-15% in real terms, together with continuing real annual unit cost growth of between 1% and 2% for UK defence capabilities.

“In the absence of a fundamental change in strategic orientation, and even allowing for further efficiency savings, projected reductions in budgets and personnel will require large reductions in the number of front-line capabilities,” writes Chalmers.

“If cutbacks are evenly spread, ground formations (including infantry, armour, artillery and support regiments) would have to fall from 97 to 79, available aircraft (fixed wing and rotary) would be reduced from 760 to 615, and major vessels (submarines, carriers, escorts and major supply ships) would fall from 57 to 46. The central question for this year's defence review will be whether some of these capabilities should be protected at the expense of deeper cuts in others. (Emphasis added—Ed.)

“If Britain's defences are to be put on a sustainable footing, efficiency savings will not be enough. In addition to the likelihood of significant real reductions in the available budget, defence planners need to take account of continuing growth in the unit costs of defence capabilities. The combination of these two trends means that the next six years are likely to see a reduction of around 20% in numbers of service personnel, and a commensurate reduction in numerical military capabilities (major vessels, aircraft and ground formations),” writes Chalmers.

With the UK committed to intense operations in Afghanistan until, at least, 2011, the paper acknowledges the 'strong temptation to postpone the hard choices' in the 2010 Defence Review by focusing only on short-term balancing of the defence budget. The report warns that such an option would probably mean that the MoD would face a further 'mini-Review' during 2012-2013, with all the uncertainties this would create.

“Politically, the choice between these two options may depend on an assessment of whether it is better to incur the political pain of defence cuts all at once, or in successive smaller doses. In strategic terms, the choice may hinge on whether longer term defence priorities can be agreed while the broader consequences of the Afghanistan operation remain so uncertain,” Chalmers concludes.

Released ahead of RUSI's Future Defence Review conference assessing the MoD's forthcoming Green Paper, the latest report draws on official data from by the MoD, HM Treasury, National Audit Office and political parties, analysing the budget projections and implications of proposed efficiency savings on defence.

Click here for the full report (18 pages in PDF format) on the RUSI website.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR_5.pdf

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Defence News:

13 January 2010

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Jan. 13, 2010)

(See note at bottom—Ed.)

Potential Cuts to Armed Forces

Various newspapers report that there could be a 20 per cent cut in Armed Forces personnel, according to a study by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) into what the Armed Forces might look like if expected cuts in MOD spending are implemented.

Like all departments, the Ministry of Defence is facing challenging financial circumstances. We routinely review our spending to ensure we focus on Afghanistan and live within our means.

The Chancellor has already said not a penny will be cut from the Defence Budget next year but it is not possible to give a meaningful assessment beyond 2010/11 as future spending plans have not yet been set.

A Strategic Defence Review will take place after the election and we welcome RUSI's contribution to the debate.

Equipment for troops in Afghanistan

The Sun newspaper says that, according to a poll they have run, only one in four British people believe our troops have all the kit they need to defeat the Taliban.

Since 2006, we have spent £10bn on equipment for the front line, with £3.2bn spent on Urgent Operational Requirements for kit and equipment specifically needed for Afghanistan, and over £1.3bn spent on more than 1,200 armoured vehicles alone.

The Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, recently said: "The equipment that our people are using is frankly the best that they've ever had in any of my 40 years of service and it's getting better all the time, so in terms of numbers, in terms of quality, both are increasing."

We are constantly buying new equipment and improving the kit sent to troops on the front line in Afghanistan. Troops who deploy on operations are issued with a 'black bag' containing over £3,000 worth of equipment from boots and sleeping bags to camel back water packs and binoculars, as well as body armour and personal weapons.

Other recent equipment increases include:

--The Royal Air Force's fleet of battle-winning Chinooks has today been boosted by the arrival of the first two new Mk3s of eight. The arrival of these aircraft is further evidence of the measures we have taken to strengthen our Support Helicopter Force and follows our announcement three weeks ago that we plan to buy up to 22 more Chinooks.
--5,000 sets of the brand new Osprey Assault body armour and Mark 7 helmets have been sent to theatre, with 5,000 more on the way.
--Two brand new tactical support vehicles have been introduced to Afghanistan - the Coyote and the Husky which carry troops, kit and supplies to the front line.
--A 77 per cent increase in the number of Ridgbacks, a smaller, more agile version of the Mastiff, since August 2009.
--By May 2010, the number of available hours provided by the Hermes 450, Desert Hawk and Reaper Unmanned Aerial Vehicles will have increased by around 33 per cent, 50 per cent and 80 per cent, respectively.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Surprisingly, MoD does not comment the biggest news story published by the British press on Jan. 12, in which the Guardian reports that “Defence chiefs are preparing drastic cuts to the number of American [F-35 JSF] stealth aircraft planned for the RAF and the Royal Navy's proposed new carriers.”)

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Britain cannot continue 'punching above its weight' militarily, Kim Howells warns

Britain cannot go on ''punching above its weight'' militarily by sending troops to the world's trouble spots, Kim Howells, the chairman of the parliamentary committee which oversees the intelligence services, has warned.

Published: 7:30AM GMT 15 Jan 2010

The former foreign office minister said the public was ''increasingly dubious'' about seeing Britain's armed forces repeatedly fighting at the ''very, very sharp end'' of international missions in countries like Afghanistan.

Dr Howells, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, called last November for Britain’s 9,500 troops to be brought home early from Afghanistan to allow resources to be focused on counter-terrorism measures in Britain.


Kim Howells, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, said Britain cannot go on "punching above its weight" militarily Photo: REUTERS

Media could face reporting ban on issues of national securityDr Howells told The Independent: ''I think we believe we have a bigger punch than we have and a lot of that rests on the superb professionalism of the armed forces.

''When the UN needs a force that's actually going to do the business, they look to the Americans and the British. They don't look to other people.

''So when there have been big problems – Sierra Leone, Bosnia – it's our troops who have been there at the very, very sharp end, in places of great danger.

''It can't continue.''

The Pontypridd MP, who is standing down from Parliament at this year's election, said that the ''extraordinary'' scenes in Wootton Bassett on the return of bodies of soldiers killed in Afghanistan showed that the public want to honour the dead.

But he added: ''They feel increasingly dubious about sending our troops on these missions.

''The more the reality of those casualties and the awful injuries is made available to the public, the more doubt there is about the wisdom of sending our troops to distant places with all of those risks.''

After Labour came to power in 1997, Dr Howells served as a minister in the departments of Education, Trade and Industry, Culture, Media and Sport, Transport; and finally the Foreign Office.

Since October 2008 he has chaired the Intelligence and Security Committee which oversees MI5, MI6 and other intelligence agencies.

Over 21 years as an MP, Dr Howells has earned a reputation for being outspoken.

As a culture minister in 2002, he dismissed the Turner Prize exhibition as ''cold, mechanical, conceptual --------'' on a comment card at Tate Britain.

In 2006 he defended the prospect of a successful future for Iraq, saying the country was ''starting to look like the sort of mess that most of us live in''.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Careful With That Ax

Posted by Douglas Barrie at 1/19/2010 6:13 AM CST

If it was unclear the exact nature of the picture the British Army’s most senior officer was trying to paint, the image was still one to cause consternation among the armed services’ fast-jet fraternity.

“One can buy a lot of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or Tucano aircraft for the cost of a few JSF (Joint Strike Fighters),” noted General David Richards, the chief of the general staff.

The head of the British Army – deliberately or otherwise – appears intent on stocking ammunition for any politician minded to pursue deep cuts in platforms suited to “higher end war-fighting capability” in the looming Strategic Defense Review.

Richards is - perfectly understandably - making his case in trying to ring-fence funding for the army. Conflating, however, single service pleading and strategic analysis is a risky business.

The General argues that basically the armed forces are ill-configured for the kind of wars they now face. In a speech on “Future Conflict And Its Prevention” at the International Institute for Strategic Studies: “Our Defence establishment has not yet fully adapted to the security realities of the post-Cold War world and this complex and dangerous new century.”

For Richards: Operating among, understanding and effectively influencing people requires mass - numbers - whether this is ‘boots on the ground’, riverine and high speed littoral warships, or UAVs, transport aircraft and helicopters.

“If one equips more for this type of conflict while significantly reducing investment in higher-end war-fighting capability, suddenly one can buy an impressive amount of ‘kit’. Whilst, as you will hear, I am emphatically not advocating getting rid of all such equipment, one can buy a lot of UAVs or Tucano aircraft for the cost of a few JSF and heavy tanks.”

While Tucano might just make a basic counter-insurgency platform – if with a very limited payload, and accepting the speed and range limitations – it is patently of no use in any other kind of conflict. While Richards analogy is just that – the problem in re-balancing force structure predominantly on the basis of the debatable lessons being distilled from Afghanistan is the risk to the UK’s remaining ability to take-part in high-intensity operations.

“Our armed forces are primarily structured and equipped for the last war, for a war of technology against technology, armour against armour. We have pared down our force numbers, replacing people with hardware and thoughts with process. Yet as the war of the present and the future is for the people, for their understanding and loyalty, we must be capable of being among the people. …this has a radical consequence for Defence.

“It requires mass. The ability to have sufficient soldiers to develop the understanding I have just described and then to dominate psychologically if not always physically the human terrain in which they are operating. You need the green and brown water fleets and the land and air mobility platforms that allow you to reach into ungoverned space and make your presence felt.”

Mass alone however - arguably - will not do. You also need the ability to “reach into ungoverned space” to gain control of it – and also the ability to project power from it.

[buglerbilly]

From The Sunday Times January 24, 2010

Officer Training Corps faces the axe

THE Ministry of Defence is drawing up emergency cuts including the scrapping of the Officer Training Corps (OTC) and the withdrawal of troops from Cyprus.

The dire state of the defence budget also means that new Nimrod spy planes, costing £3.6 billion and due to come into service next week, will be parked in their hangars.

Other cuts, expected to be unveiled in the next two months, include:

- Closing up to three airbases.

- Reducing the £700m annual bill for army accommodation by giving soldiers housing credits to buy or rent property.

- Axeing the grace and favour homes provided to 20 army, navy and air force chiefs.

- Closing Aldershot and Shrewsbury, two of the army’s five regional headquarters.

- Privatising parts of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the organisation that repairs and supplies naval vessels.

Disclosure of the cuts comes amid fierce wrangling between General Sir David Richards, the head of the army, and Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the head of the Royal Navy, over which service should suffer the most.

MoD officials are drawing up savings in current spending ahead of the budget in March, which is expected to demand reductions in defence spending in real terms.

Capital projects such as new aircraft carriers and the joint strike fighter will be considered in a separate strategic defence review, which will be launched after the general election.

The OTC, the cadet scheme for students, costs £82m a year. A defence source said: “Very few private companies spend this kind of money on graduate recruitment. It is an expensive luxury a modern army can do without.”

Founded in 1908, it has long been unpopular with left-wing politicians who see it as a subsidy for the privileged. Its bases, at 19 universities, serve cheap drink and teach military drill, weapons training and fieldcraft. While some officer cadets go on to Sandhurst or join the Territorial Army, the majority have no further contact with the military.

Withdrawal of forces from Cyprus, where 3,000 British troops are based, would be controversial. Britain’s “sovereign base areas”, which cost the MoD about £300m a year, were created when the island gained independence in 1960.

Cyprus is used by British troops as a forward base, with a battalion of infantry held there as reinforcements for Afghanistan, and troops returning from the front line are taken there for rest and recuperation between operations.

Officials believe about £100m could be saved if most of the troops are moved back to the UK. “The practice of using Cyprus is long-standing, but no one has stood back and asked whether it is still a good idea,” a defence source said. “Many soldiers don’t regard Cyprus as a jolly, but would rather be back home if not on the front line.”

The RAF base at Akrotiri and Britain’s electronic listening base at Ayios Nikolaos will be retained.

Aldershot has an even firmer role than Cyprus in military logistics; it is regarded as the home of the British Army. But Richards believes that the regional divisional headquarters there and in Shrewsbury are largely unnecessary. Sources say he also had his eye on the regional headquarters in Edinburgh, which survives for political reasons. Two other regional HQs — Bulford, near Salisbury, and York — will remain.

Nine new Mk4 Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft were due to come into service next week, replacing the discredited Mk2. But Quentin Davies, the defence equipment minister, has cancelled a visit to the Nimrod base at RAF Kinloss, Morayshire. Sources blame the £30m annual maintenance costs.

“We expect to have only one or two aircraft flying until 2012 and the rest are going to be parked up until we can find some money to fly them,” an RAF source said.

Mk2 Nimrods were used in Afghanistan, where the crash of one led to charges that it was a flying coffin; but the Mk4 is planned for maritime surveillance. Originally, 21 were due to come into service in 2001 for £2.2 billion. Time and cost both overran drastically as the manufacturer, BAE Systems, ran into design problems.

A spokesman for the MoD said: “We regularly review the defence programme to ensure our commitments match the resources available.”

[buglerbilly]

UK defence minister outlines MoD's imminent acquisition reform strategy

By Matthew Bell

27 January 2010

I await the results with bated breath.............

UK defence minister Lord Drayson has outlined to Jane's the themes of the Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) imminent strategy for acquisition reform.

Lord Drayson, minister for strategic defence acquisition reform, said on 26 January that the strategy will establish a new decision framework for procurement. The framework will be based on a new 10-year 'planning horizon', which will draw on regular strategic defence reviews (SDRs) and yearly audits to maintain a balance between long-term planning and short-term priorities.

"It's a recognition that the decision-making around equipment projects needs to be managed for the long term," said Drayson, "whereby, overall, the MoD is held accountable to the treasury for the overall equipment budget - the equipment plan - over a 10-year period."

He added that the new structure would enable the MoD to "flex" programme decisions within a broad, 10-year "portfolio".

[buglerbilly]

Government to unveil plans for 'more efficient' armed forcesGreen paper expected to concede present plans are unaffordable but fail to spell out specific ways of slashing spending

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 February 2010 09.47 GMT


Gordon Brown meets British soldiers at Camp Bastion in Helmand province, Afghanistan, in April. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, will today publish preliminary plans designed to slim down the armed forces and make them "more efficient" over the next decade.

At 12.30pm he will publish a green paper designed to set the framework for a full-scale defence review that will take place after the general election.

It is expected to concede present plans are unaffordable but not spell out any specific ways of slashing spending, with the MoD budget tipped to be hit hard by Whitehall cutbacks.

However, Gordon Brown has insisted high-profile projects such as the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers and joint strike fighter aircraft are not under threat.

Critics have accused the prime minister of pre-empting the review and playing politics with the military by making unaffordable promises in a bid to pressure the Tories to match his commitment.

Today's document is the result of analysis of the changing strategic context, lessons from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, technological advances, and the use of "soft power".

It also examines ways of improving equipment procurement following a review that found the current programme was £35bn over budget with projects running, on average, five years late.

The government announced there would be a post-election strategic defence review – which the Tories have promised too if they take power – last summer.

Other parties have been involved in drawing up the interim green paper, which Ainsworth has said would highlight the need for the armed forces to be "more efficient right across the piece".

The MoD said it would inform debate, within and outside the military, "about how best to structure defence for the threats, risks and challenges we face now and in the future".

It is expected to argue that global threats rule out withdrawing to a "fortress Britain" approach but that financial pressures will mean a heavier reliance on allies, such as the EU and France.

And in a clear signal that the MoD expects cutbacks, it is expected to conclude: "We cannot proceed with all the activity and preparation we currently aspire to while simultaneously supplying our current operations and investing in the new capacity we need."

Analysts warn that, with health, education and the police being protected from cuts in Labour's plans to tackle the UK's record £178bn deficit, defence will suffer a severe squeeze.

The carrier and fighter jet projects – as well as the renewal of the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent – are among "big ticket" items that have been widely tipped to be axed.

But Brown yesterday repeated his insistence that the multibillion-pound carrier project was safe.

"Defence expenditure is rising this year and next year," the prime minister said in evidence to a committee of senior MPs – with future commitments to be decided after the review.

Brown, who denied claims that as chancellor he starved the military of much-needed resources for the Afghan campaign, including helicopters, said the mission would get whatever resources it required – even if that meant cuts elsewhere.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the government was making "huge" spending promises despite a £35bn "black hole" in the MoD's books and the state of the public finances.

"It is a clear Labour deception, where Labour's political interests are yet again put before the national interest," he said – adding that finance was not a factor in the green paper discussions.

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has said he cannot make informed decisions about the future of projects such as the carriers because the opposition has not seen break clauses in the contracts.

Only the NHS and international aid budgets have been guaranteed safety from the spending axe if the Tories, who have said they will cut further and faster than Labour, are elected.

[buglerbilly]

MoD Paper: U.K. Must Curtail Some Military Activities

By andrew chuter

Published: 3 Feb 2010 13:44

LONDON - A green paper on defense reform admits that Britain cannot proceed with the level of activities and programs presently undertaken by the armed forces.

A key recommendation in the Ministry of Defence paper: turn to greater co-operation with allies to offset the consequences of budget constraints, Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth told reporters Feb. 3.

The paper names France as a potential partner, saying its recent return to NATO integrated military structure "offers an opportunity for even greater co-operation with a key partner across a range of defense activity."

It also states that implementation of the Lisbon Treaty could improve European Union involvement in crisis management through an integrated civil-military capacity.

Britain and France agreed to boost military ties following 1998 and 2003 summit meetings between then-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac. The two sides have also co-operated on several weapon programs and are currently talking about joint development of missiles, munitions and other equipment.

Greater cooperation with France and others was "not contradictory to Britain's relations with the USA but complementary," states the paper, adding that the U.S. relationship remains the most important bilateral security and defense tie.

Liam Fox, the Conservative Party shadow defense secretary, told Parliament that he agreed with the MoD position regarding a strengthening of bilateral relations but said that few European nations would be worth cooperating with to any great degree.

"We agree that France and the United States are likely to be our main strategic partners. For the U.S., there are two tests: Do they invest in defense? And do they fight? Sadly, too few European allies pass both these tests," Fox said.

The green paper, a consultative document aimed at stimulating discussion but containing no commitment to action, states that a key strategic question for Britain is whether it should integrate its armed forces with those of key allies.

The document, "Adaptability & Partnership: Issues for the Strategic Defence Review," raises the question of whether cooperation should go beyond the current levels into broader relationships.

"We are likely to undertake all operations other than evacuation and defense of the overseas territories alongside allies and partners," according to the report. "We are already dependent on allies in some key areas, such as space. Further integrating our capabilities with our key allies and partners, through role specialization, joint capabilities or additional dependence, would place limits on our ability to act nationally. But it could deliver a more effective contribution to international security."

All three leading political parties here are committed to a strategic defense review following a general election scheduled to take place by early June. The review could lead to a number of program cancellations and capability cuts for the cash-strapped British government.

Britain hasn't had a full-scale defense review since 1998. The government and the Conservative opposition have pledged to legislate to have a review after every general election.

[buglerbilly]

U.K. Sets Strategy Against Program Costs, Delays

By andrew chuter

Published: 3 Feb 2010 10:48

LONDON - Britain's Ministry of Defence will act to reduce spiraling growth in program costs and delivery delays, which the National Audit Office estimated cost 1.2 billion pounds ($1.9 billion) in 2008-09 for the department's 15 biggest programs alone.

Delays and cost overruns to the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers are among the items largely to blame for the poor 2008 performance. (BAE SYSTEMS CONCEPT) The MoD warned in an acquisition reform strategy published today that it was no longer possible to continue buying equipment at the same levels as previously and that "difficult choices" would have to be made.

"We can no longer set out to buy as much as we did previously; we need to be more firmly focused on the central priorities flowing from the new Strategy for Defence and the [upcoming] strategic defence review. We need to decide what is, and what is not, affordable in the context of our defence and national security policies and we need to ensure our short-term budgeting takes account of long-term impacts," the document says.

The most important commitments in the strategy involve taking "tough decisions and sticking to them, having ensured the plans were deemed strategically aligned, affordable and achievable," it says.

Among the long list of major reforms are a commitment to inform Parliament annually of the cost and affordability of the equipment and support program against a 10-year planning horizon agreed by the Treasury and audited by the National Audit Office; a strengthening of top-level oversight of the equipment program with an equipment committee chaired by the permanent undersecretary; and the production of a new defense industrial strategy reflecting the outcome of a wider defense review planned to get underway after the next election.

The new acquisition strategy rolled out here today said the MoD intends the reforms to drive down average cost growth on equipment programs to no more than 0.4 percent and would like to achieve 0.2 percent a year. In 2008-09, the British saw equipment program costs rise 5.6 percent.

The document was published alongside a government green paper outlining the issues for consideration ahead of a strategic defense review to be called immediately after a general election due by midyear.

The acquisition strategy aims to reduce program slippage dates from the 2008-09 performance of 5.9 months to 0.8 months per year.

Demonstrating much lower levels of cost growth and delays was one of two indicators the report highlighted for demonstrating whether the reforms, some of which are already being carried out, are a success.

Equipment and Support Plans

The other indicator, the report says, is an independent audit undertaken each year showing that the MoD can afford its equipment and support plans.

Delays and cost overruns to the A400M airlifter, the Astute nuclear submarine and the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers were largely to blame for the poor 2008 performance, but Britain has a history of problems delivering major projects on time and to budget.

The new strategy comes in the wake of damning criticism of the acquisition process here in an MoD-commissioned review conducted by businessman Bernard Gray that was published last October.

The MoD said at the time it accepted most of Gray's recommendations and has published the new strategy detailing just how the government hopes to remedy past acquisition failures.

It's the fourth attempt at acquisition reform since Labour come to power in 1997, the two latest efforts being the defense industrial strategy in 2005 and defense acquisition change program of 2006.

Defence acquisition reform minister Lord Drayson has been in charge of the latest proposals as he was with the 2005 and 2006 efforts.

In a statement, Drayson said it is vital to make defense acquisition as efficient as possible. "This is a strategy for major reform. At its center is a radical plan to increase the transparency of our equipment plan to help ensure it can be kept affordable and achievable."

Britain spends about 20 billion pounds on goods and services, about two-thirds of its annual defense budget.

Gray concluded current spending plans were unaffordable and would have to be cut back, an analysis the acquisition strategy document agrees with.

Public Debt Crisis

Even greater cost pressures are growing as Britain faces a public debt crisis brought about by the recession, which threatens to cut, or at best flat-line, defense spending.

Some of those cuts could come in the 2010-11 financial year but the big decisions on program cuts will likely have to wait the outcome of the strategic defense review.

The MoD said it will deliver its acquisition reform aims by creating equipment and support programs that:

■ Are affordable within likely resources.

■ Agile and responsive to changing priorities.

■ Realistic about costs and risks of what the MoD plans to acquire.

■ Embed a through-life approach to capability.

■ Build a more active and transparent relationship with industry.

[buglerbilly]

From Times Online February 3, 2010

Armed Forces: fund defence or lose our ability to fight overseas

Deborah Haynes and Tom Coghlan

The Armed Forces issued a stark warning to the public today to fund defence or risk losing the ability to fight overseas and accept a decline in Britain’s global status.

In an eagerly awaited Green Paper on Defence, Service Chiefs offered a bleak assessment of the pressures being heaped on the cash-strapped Armed Forces.

“We cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations and investing in the new capabilities we need,” it stated.

The report warned that the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) which will follow after the general election “must be able to drive radical change” within the Armed Forces.

Offering a hint of the radical thinking that squeezed budgets may require, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, even cast doubt on whether the army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force would exist as separate entities in 10 years’ time.

Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, said: “Tough choices will lie ahead and we need to rebalance our budget to better reflect our priorities.” However, the Defence Secretary went onto reconfirm a Labour government’s commitment to buying two new aircraft carriers.

“The strategic defence review will have to take a pretty radical direction not foreseen by me in order to suggest that those capabilities will not be required,” Mr Ainsworth told a press conference.

The Green Paper poses key questions about whether the public is prepared to pay for Britain to remain a power with global reach.

“We must determine the global role we wish to play, the relative role of the Armed Forces and the resources we are willing to dedicate to them,” the paper said.

The 52-page document sets the scene for the long-overdue strategic defence review. It is written in the coded language of Whitehall but offers heavy hints to the debates that will follow in the SDR.

The Green Paper anticipates an increasingly fractured and unpredictable world in which UK forces must be prepared for “cluttered” wars in the world’s urban areas, coastal waters and low airspace that will see “hard and dangerous combat”.

It predicts British troops can expect to see casualty rates that “increase markedly” as developing areas of the world close the gap on the West’s technological advantages.

Global trends will include a rise of the Asia-Pacific region, the continuing globalisation of communications, instability caused by climate change and inequality and the continued threat of nuclear proliferation. New theatres of conflict will be Space and cyberspace.

The Green Paper indicates that Service Chiefs will argue for a new focus on alliance building, particularly in Europe, to compensate for the rising costs of defence. In particular Britain is expected to cooperate with France, the only other major military power in Europe.

The report suggests an “increased role specialisation or capability pooling within NATO and the EU.” The Green Paper is frequently self-critical, acknowledging that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced a fundamental rethink to the way the army is configured:

“Our assumption that we could “go first, go fast and go home” has proved false,” it states.

Professor Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, welcomed the report: “The paper is a realistic take on the situation we are going to find ourselves. Partly this arises out of exasperation in the MOD that everyone wants the Forces to keep making these commitments but won’t pay for it. We haven’t had these sort of big strategic choices since the early 1930s.”

Professor David Livingstone at Chatham House said: “Are we going to remain a premium military power - punching above our weight?

This a very complex world now. If you want a total response to all the threats a nation faces, you have got to have the whole spectrum of tools at your disposal and this leads onto the question of alliances.”

[buglerbilly]

From The Times February 10, 2010

UK military creaking under strain of Iraq and Afghanistan, report saysTom Coghlan

Budget cuts and relentless fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have left more than half of the ships, aircraft and ground units of the Armed Forces with “serious or critical weaknesses”, MPs say today.

Britain’s military is creaking under the strain of ongoing operations and is being forced to deploy faulty equipment, suspend training and cancel the replacement of outdated kit, the report by the Commons Defence Committee says.

The report, which comes ahead of a post-election Strategic Defence Review, concludes: “For some considerable period now ... the Armed Forces have operated above the overall level of concurrent operations which they are resourced and structured to sustain over time.”

James Arbuthnot, the Conservative chairman of the committee, told The Times: “I think we have reached a really serious stage and it is because we have been fighting two wars on a peacetime budget. It is not a surprise that we are concentrating heavily on the operations in Afghanistan, and that has to be right, but the consequences for our ability to deal with the unexpected are serious.”

Particularly badly affected is the Royal Navy, which the report concludes has not recovered from a reduction in support resources that was ordered to meet the extra demands on the other services of the war in Iraq between 2004 and 2006.

It says that the funding shortages have forced the Navy to buy spare parts off the shelf as well as to cannibalise equipment.The Navy has had to extend the service life of the Type 23 frigate from 16 to 30 years, while any delay to the arrival of the new Type 45 destroyer will “exacerbate the level of unreliability of the Type 42”.

The Navy’s Merlin helicopter fleet has also become a source of concern. Having redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, the report says that the Merlins are in danger of exhausting the supply of spare parts, with 50 per cent of available spares already absorbed by only 20 per cent of the aircraft.

Training has also had to be suspended, leading to “capability gaps”, notably the number of Harrier pilots trained to fly from aircraft carriers.

In spite of the budget cuts expected after the election, the report backs the argument of senior commanders that the Army should be enlarged — from 102,000 to 112,000 — because of the increasing number of wounded soldiers.

Servicemen should not deploy for more than six months in any two-year period. Currently 55 per cent of the Royal Artillery and 53 per cent of infantrymen are being deployed in excess of the guideline.

The MPs warn against early defence cuts before the Strategic Defence Review. “If the review concluded that the country faced a particular significant threat the Government would look foolish if, only a few months earlier, it had rendered itself less capable of dealing with it.”

[buglerbilly]

DATE:12/02/10

SOURCE:Flight InternationalUK outlines defence review issues

By Craig Hoyle

The UK Ministry of Defence has repeated its past message that tough choices must be made about future equipment acquisition, but again provided few specifics. Its position is published in a Green Paper outlining the issues to be addressed in a future Strategic Defence Review process.

Released on 3 February, the document - entitled Adaptability and Partnership: Issues for the Strategic Defence Review - is intended to prompt discussion as to the future balance and mission of the UK armed forces, says defence secretary Bob Ainsworth. "What we're trying to do is pose the questions, and start a debate."

Declining to provide details on possible Labour party initiatives, Ainsworth points out that the Green Paper was drafted with the input of specialists from across the political spectrum and from academia. "We need to challenge any rigidities that we have in the system to make sure that our methods are adaptable enough to support our armed forces," he says.

Pressed on the likelihood that the SDR will lead to a reduction in spending, he counters: "We need to rebalance our budget to better match our resources. But that doesn't mean cuts."

Ainsworth notes: "Right now Afghanistan is necessarily our main effort." Operations in the country will be supported using £3.5 billion ($5.5 billion) from Treasury funds this year, and this is expected to rise to £5 billion in 2011, he says.

Ainsworth confirms that the Labour party has no intention of reviewing its plans to renew the UK's Trident-based independent nuclear deterrent, or to cancel contracts linked to the construction of the Royal Navy's two Future Aircraft Carriers. "We are already cutting steel [on the carriers] - that to some degree closes our options," he adds.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Tit-For-Tat Engagement

Posted by Douglas Barrie at 2/15/2010 12:48 PM CST

While the first address was billed as “Future Conflict and its Prevention” - the prevention bit seems erroneous, at least when it comes to inter-service wrangling among the UK’s armed forces.

February 15 was the Royal Air Force’s turn to take the podium at the International Institute For Strategic Studies, with Air Chief Marshal Steve Dalton, the chief of the air staff, addressing the topic of “Dominant Air Power in the Information Age.”

Dalton’s opening gambit was to stress what he was going to say was “by its nature complementary not contradictory” to the other military service chiefs. He added “Anyway, in reality, all three of us are in broad agreement about the vast majority of the challenges we face, although as you’d expect - and quite naturally – we sometimes differ in emphasis and our interpretation about the best ways of dealing with them.”

Dalton – however – was not in “broad agreement” with some of British Army General David Richards comments in his “Future Conflicts and its Prevention” address.

With London to hold a Strategic Defense Review beginning immediately after the election of a new government mid-year, the services are setting out their stalls and arguments over what is certain to be a challenging process – particularly given the squeeze on funding.

Richards contended that the armed forces are not well configured for the types of conflicts he expects the UK will be involved in – and that a force structure geared toward the kind of war now being fought in Afghanistan is more suitable.

“If one equips more for this type of conflict while significantly reducing investment in high-end war-fighting, suddenly one can buy an impressive amount of kit. Whilst …I am emphatically not advocating getting rid of all such equipment, one can buy a lot of UAVs or Tucano (turboprop) aircraft for the cost of a few JSFs and heavy tanks”

Richards comments were picked up by the media – including this blog. While not directly addressing the army chief’s remarks Dalton noted: “It has been argued in the media that turboprop light attack aircraft could be used to replace fast jets in our combat air inventory. But this would cost lives, because light aircraft just don’t stack up.”

Dalton also warned against using Afghanistan as a template for the future. “We need to think very carefully about whether our ‘Afghanistan’ era force structure is a model for the future. Do we want – and need – to put all our eggs into this particular basket...we must develop for the future. not merely reinforce our capabilities to meet today's or yesterday's requirements."

Dalton’s contention that he’s “not arguing for high tech ‘boys’ toys’” and that his “concern is about capabilities, not simply the platforms that deliver them” is undoubtedly true. But issues for air power in the UK are the public perception of the sticker price associated with some of these platforms that are the capability enablers – and their comparative lack of visibility in the present war in Afghanistan. Portraying boots on the ground is an easy media win – the role of air power, partly by its discrete and wide ranging nature –is more difficult to capture, or even to begin to engage with.

The Chief of the Air Staff has also set up nicely the final service chief address to the IISS, to be given by the navy boss, Admiral Mark Stanhope – with what seemed a less than ringing endorsement of carrier-strike.

“Carrier-strike obviously offers one such capability and, in principle, I support it as one of the clubs in the golf-bag of options available to us. Yes the opportunity cost is very high, but if this country wants to have the ability to demonstrate its will and capability to engage on a global-scale, then it is entirely arguable that we should have such force elements.”

The chief of the air staff went on to add: “Whilst the nature of carrier operations means that the effective range, payload and weight of effort of carrier-based aircraft is markedly reduced in comparison to land-based contemporaries, carrier aviation can be useful in key scenarios and it would give us options. Nevertheless, in our joint operational concept, carrier strike aircraft would be deployed to operating bases on land as soon as practicable, to maximise capabilities and minimise costs, in accordance with the principle enshrined in current defence policy that land-basing aircraft is preferable.”

Dalton no doubt wants to see that particular piece of enshrining to continue.

[buglerbilly]

Lord Drayson's reform agenda

Friday, February 12, 2010

Lord Drayson has been introducing his plan for Strategic Acquisition Reform to the MoD, Defence Equipment and Support and now industry. Joel Shenton explores how Lord Drayson introduced the strategy to industry.

The recently published green paper alone can't get the Ministry of Defence's equipment programme out of the red. The launch of the paper at the end of January was an important milestone for government, marking the opening of discussions that will directly influence the next Strategic Defence Review, but it was primarily about defining Britain's military place on the world stage.

The launch of the green paper was accompanied by the release of the Strategy for Acquisition Reform – a document which could affect Britain's ability to adopt whatever stance the next Strategic Defence Review demands. The SAR deals with concrete pledges on how to deal with the problems that have blighted defence spending. Slippage, cost overruns and delays in defence procurement have cost billions of pounds, and some projects have been reduced in size and number, or launched less capable as a result.

But the SAR brings with it the hope of a better way of operating. Lord Drayson, Minister for Strategic Defence Acquisition Reform, has set out a plan to tackle the problems in acquisition, and critics of the current process seem to be able to agree with his plans. Since returning to a defence ministerial post last summer he has produced the reform strategy and promised to work hard towards smoothing out the unpredictable acquisition process for government and industry alike.

Introducing the Strategy for Acquisition Reform to industry, Lord Drayson said there was a need to "reset the equipment plan once we've completed the SDR", giving the MoD a clean slate and allowing it to aim for the balanced budgets his plans set out to achieve.

"The fundamental problem," Lord Drayson told ADS members, "is deep-seated cost pressures. The programme is overheated." His words mirrored those used by Bernard Gray in his damning report on MoD acquisition in October last year.

"We still have a planning system that isn't as rigorous or as transparent as it needs to be – with ongoing weaknesses in procurement decisions…The department must reach a point where the entire budget is back in balance, and short-term pressures no longer interfere with long-term priorities.

"Whether people define the new strategy as radical or evolutionary is frankly by the by. I'm only interested in it succeeding."

Drayson said there were three main problems that affected the planning of MoD acquisition. The first was the temptation to sacrifice science, innovation and technology spending when cuts need to be made, and Drayson promised no further research cuts would be made in the current planning round.

Second was the tendency to delay programmes in order to meet the current year's budget needs, increasing longer-term costs. Last year a National Audit Office examination of 15 major defence projects reported that in 2008/09 £1.2bn was added to costs by this method alone.

Drayson also criticised the incentives to make initial cost estimates which are unrealistically low so that projects make it into the programme – creating a false sense of affordability and storing up problems for the future. Bernard Gray wrote that 'vested interests' were aware that once a project makes it on the equipment programme it is unlikely to be cancelled, and that this assumption has led to the unrealistically low bids and cost inflation.

Drayson also explained changes to the management of the equipment programme would end service chiefs' focus on their own branch of the armed forces when calling for equipment. Defence equipment would be bought for the defence of the nation as a whole, in line with planned objectives.

A new committee comprising the permanent and 2nd permanent secretaries, the chief and vice chief of the defence staff and the finance director will oversee equipment and support. It will be responsible for reviewing strategic direction and affordability.

"The committee does not include the single service chiefs because we need to fix the counterproductive incentives within the system," said Drayson. "We need to make sure that the decisions made about capability are rigorously examined for their affordability and their requirement from the perspective of defence overall – and not a single viewpoint within defence."

"The purpose is to control more closely what projects go in and out of the programme, and to be more active in identifying and dealing with projects at risk of cost growth or delay. To stop making decisions to delay projects simply to meet in-year cost pressures."

If Lord Drayson's plans come to fruitition, the equipment programme will be created from scratch and cleared of single service bias. Once that has been achieved, Drayson plans for it to be more regularly examined by Parliament.

"We will publish annual assessment to Parliament concerning the overall affordability of our equipment and support plans as a whole," he said, adding that plans will be drawn against a 10-year planning horizon, with annual audits carried out by the NAO.

Drayson also promised to draft a second Defence Industrial Strategy as part of the Strategic Defence Review.

While the measures are undoubtedly positive, ambitious and radical in removing single-service interests from major equipment decisions and boosting scrutiny, their success hinges on the MoD's ability to deliver.

One audience member from a technology consultancy said that the MoD today was arguably a less intelligent customer today than it has been for years, perhaps since WWII. Drayson agreed that commercial skills from industry were needed, but did not appear to endorse the wider use of consultancy to boost this. Instead he called on people in industry to work in defence procurement, and promised £45m to train staff in the skills needed

"We need to see more people come from industry to work within defence procurement," he said. "We thought long and hard about how we can best develop the skills bases and the systems to manage this better and we need to do this in-house."

Defending the £45m extra spend on training over the next four years, Drayson said: "The investment that we make in improving the skills and the know-how of the people that do that work – the systems that they use, the project management - doing this in an organisation that is as complex as it needs to be to deliver the whole range of equipment means that it has to cost that amount of money. It is a very sensible investment of taxpayers' money."

With a long period of change ahead, right through to the next SDR, Drayson promised that efforts will be made to keep the MoD operating at something approaching normality.

The new acquisition plans are bold - they had to be following the Gray report. Lord Drayson's Acquisition reforms are an offshoot, rather than a complete adoption of Gray's principles, but they are attempting to tackle the central problems identified in a review which Drayson said "thoroughly pulled up the carpet" on problems with acquisition.

Lord Drayson has promised that results will be visible within a year of implementing the new strategy, but it remains to be seen whether this is the plan that will be able to balance the MoD's books once and for all.

[buglerbilly]

The flow of the fleet

Monday, January 25, 2010

Older article, interesting nevertheless...............

Mark Dovey, Heavy Logistic Vehicles Programme Manager for the MoD's General Support Vehicles Team, talks to DMJ about the complexity involved in keeping the armed forces on the move

Providing procurement services and through life management for over 31,000 heavy, utility and specialist logistics and support vehicles is the task of the General Support Vehicles (GSV) Team, a key part of the General Support Group. DMJ had the opportunity to learn about the progress of the team's work from Heavy Logistic Vehicles Programme Manager Mark Dovey.

With increasing acquisition focus on satisfying the needs of operations, discussion began surrounding the practical implications involved with the growing complexity of the UOR process, particularly where multiple teams are involved.

"The process for staffing Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) is now a well trodden path," Dovey explains, "without the greater assurance burdens and more reviews of conventional procurement. Over the last year we have gained valuable experience in the management of complex pan project team UORs, and the benefits are being felt by the frontline commands – though this doesn't ease the burden or impact on our routine business."

Learning from previous projects, Dovey continues, has been important in the broader acquisition process. In particular, the lessons learned from the Support Vehicle (SV) contract have been communicated to other teams. "Members of the SV team have given LFE briefings to teams such as the OUVS (Operational Utility Vehicle System) as have our Wheeled Tanker team. The lessons learned are shared within the team, cluster and with our user and sponsor communities. We continuously press project teams for updates, trends and other analysis in order to remain proactive in development and modification."

A vehicle's future is also influenced by assessments of its operational capabilities, Dovey explains, which may extend the original requirements of the vehicle agreed with the user during the procurement phase, a process that can take place up to 5 to 10 years in advance. The successful deployment of the SV, he says, has not stopped an ongoing process of development as specific theatre requirements are identified. "The operational situation is fluid and the threat emerging, and so the team needs to work with the contractor to meet these developing requirements under the banner of post design services. In terms of armour, the vehicles are supplied with an appliqué armour pack. As the threat changes, we continue to develop our armour solutions to defeat it."

The influence of the UOR process can also extend a vehicle's capabilities, says Dovey. He takes as an example the SV Enhanced Palletised Load System (EPLS) variant. "Should there be further needs from theatre that could be met by variation of the Support Vehicle fleet, then these will be considered in the round, alongside other alternatives, to ensure the provision of best value for money and delivery within an appropriate timeframe."

He explains there are also other programmes in the pipeline, but nothing has yet been agreed regarding the procurement strategies.

Operations, as a matter of course, also take their toll on the capability of vehicles, and Dovey insists that the GSV Team's range of logistic vehicles is coping well in Afghanistan, despite their intense work rate, challenging environmental aspects and increased payloads. "The range of vehicles in our fleet enables us to carry payloads from one tonne to over 80 tonnes. If individual vehicles are not overloaded, there should be no impact on vehicle life." He goes on, "We work closely with HQ Land Forces to ensure users are aware of the loading limitations for vehicles during familiarisation training. We then seek to provide best advice to minimise the impact on reliability and vehicle life of utilising the vehicles beyond their stated payload limits on operations."

Weight is also a determining factor in recovery operations. With the range of vehicles and trailers now in use, the recovery of a fully loaded Heavy Vehicle Transporter (HET) – at 120 tonnes – is entirely practical; future acquisitions will have to take larger gross vehicle weights into consideration. "The GSV Team", Dovey says, "informs the Capability Director of Expeditionary Logistic Support (Cap ELS) and the User of the limitations of current capabilities. It is then for the sponsor and user to identify perceived gaps in future deployed scenarios and produce new requirements for the team to procure against."

[Grey Havoc]

If Lord Drayson's plans come to fruitition, the equipment programme will be created from scratch and cleared of single service bias. Once that has been achieved, Drayson plans for it to be more regularly examined by Parliament.

This would only lead to disaster. As if the current situation wasn't nearly bad enough.

[buglerbilly]

Helicopter Capability: Government Response to the Committee's Eleventh Report (excerpt)

(Source: House of Commons Defence committee; issued Feb. 25, 2010)

The Defence Committee published its Eleventh Report of Session 2008–09 on Helicopter Capability on 16 July 2009, as House of Commons Paper HC 434. The Government’s response to this Report was received on 6 October 2009.

On 12 December 2009, the Committee wrote to the MoD asking for further information. This information was received on 4 January 2010 and stands as Annex A to the Government response. Both are appended below.


ANNEX A: Additional Information

1. The Response to the Report addressed the concerns raised by the Committee in terms of fleet size. However, less reference was made to availability in terms of task lines required and fulfilled. What is the Government doing to ensure that, in addition to sufficient numbers of helicopters, there are sufficient trained pilots and ground crews available in order to enable these assets to be used to their full capacity?

Currently, the Helicopter Forces within the Joint Helicopter Command (JHC) are either manned to the endorsed (funded) level of establishment or will achieve the required level of manning within the next 18 months. This will allow the sustainable delivery of the required number of Rotary Wing platforms, task lines and flying hours in Afghanistan, including the planned delivery of uplifts in Merlin and Chinook in 2010 which we have already announced. Importantly, achievement of the endorsed establishments will also deliver the appropriate Force readiness cycles laid down by Commander JHC.

2. You state that by April 2009 the number of helicopter hours in Afghanistan had increased by 84%. When was the baseline for this increase?

The baseline for percentage increases in both helicopter numbers and helicopter flying hours increases is November 2006.

3. Is it the case that the flying hours and availability dropped off over the summer? To what extent do you estimate that the re-engined Lynx Mk9s will reduce the summer drop-off in 2010?

Due to degraded performance resulting from Afghanistan’s summer environmental conditions, Lynx helicopters have since 2007 only deployed during the winter; as a result there has been a comparative hours reduction in the summer. The Lynx Mk 9a, with improved engine performance, will allow the aircraft to operate during the Afghanistan summer and deliver a year round capability.

4. To what extent are you able to make full use of civilian helicopters, given their relative vulnerability?

Civilian helicopters are fully utilised to deliver logistical support within the context of the operational situation. Improvements to future contracts will increase utility and efficiency, but they will remain constrained by their vulnerability to hostile action. Commercially contracted helicopter support ensures that military aircraft with their range of defensive aid suites and ballistic protection can concentrate on the completion of military tasks for which they are best suited.

5. How certain are you that the Sea King LEP will go ahead? When can a decision be expected on the nature of the investment to be made in this project? To what extent are you hoping this programme will reduce the dip in the numbers of lift aircraft owned by the MOD between now and 2020?

For the reasons highlight in response to question 7 (below) we are unable to retire our Sea King Mk4 immediately, without impacting our ability to undertake current operations. We have however decided to significantly reduce our planned investment in this fleet, and now plan to retire all marks of Sea King by early 2016, ensuring that we avoid any disproportionate increases in costs that might arise if the fixed costs of supporting the Sea King fleet were then to be shared across fewer aircraft.

We own today 38 Chinook, 28 Merlin, 37 Sea King Mk4 and 34 Puma lift helicopters (not including the nine Puma that are now non-effective and the eight Mk3 Chinook currently under reversion). Only the Chinook, Merlin and those 16 Sea King Mk4 aircraft that have been upgraded with the ‘Carson’ main rotor blades and new tail rotors are suitable for operations in Afghanistan, i.e. 82 helicopters. Obviously only a percentage of these could be deployed given our need to undertake depth servicing, and essential training to ensure our crews remain current and ready to deploy within our harmony guidelines.

Previously published plans would see us operating in the battlefield support helicopter role, by 2020, 48 Chinook, 28 Merlin, 28 Puma and around 28 Future Medium Helicopters, i.e. a total of 132 aircraft, all would likely be suitable for operations in Afghanistan. The plans we announced in December decreases slightly this number (to 126 aircraft) but significant increases the overall lift capacity and capability by focusing investment in more capable Chinook helicopters; Chinook offers more than double the lift capability over a medium support helicopter. We believe that this new approach best balances the need for aircraft numbers, the individual capabilities of those aircraft, and the number of hours we can operate them for. It must be remembered that each of these aspects is important—there’s no point having lots of aircraft that are unsuitable for the demanding roles we require of them.

6. What level of investment has been made in the Puma since 1990? Would this money have been better spent on buying new Merlin or Chinook airframes to add to the existing fleet?

Between 1990 and the recent commitment to the Puma upgrades we have spent some £60M-£70M on capability enhancements to the Puma fleet. This level of investment would equate to the acquisition of about three Merlin helicopters or about two Chinook helicopters. These very modest additions to our existing Merlin or Chinook fleets would have been insufficient, by a considerable margin, to have delivered the roles and requirements assigned to the 34 aircraft Puma fleet.

7. Can the MoD provide the Committee with a detailed summary of the evidence upon which the decision to go ahead with the Puma LEP was based?

The planning assumptions for the Future Medium Helicopter project were for deliveries to start in Financial Year 2014/15 and then continue at a rate of six aircraft per annum thereafter. This would allow the retirement (after their respective life-extension projects) of Sea King Mk4 in 2018 and Puma from 2022. Without new investment, however, we would need to commence the withdrawal of these aircraft types from 2012.

It is simply not practicable to deliver the required number of new helicopters by 2012 due to manufacturing, financial, training and logistic constraints.

Our discussions with a number of helicopter manufacturers indicated that industrial capacity potentially existed to provide 20 new aircraft by the end of 2012, with all new 56 aircraft being delivered by mid 2015. To achieve this however would require an additional £500M-£800M over the next four years above the funding already available to helicopters. This additional funding could not be found without detrimental effects elsewhere across the Defence Programme.

Within the current funding profile assigned to the sustainment of the Puma and Sea King Mk4 and the delivery of the Future Medium Helicopter project, we could only afford to buy a maximum of seven new helicopters by the end of 2012, with up to 18 helicopters delivered by mid-2015. This approach would create a substantial gap in lift helicopter numbers from 2012 until at least 2017 that, at its worst would reduce support helicopter Forward Fleet numbers by up to 40%. Such a shortfall would reduce the numbers of support helicopters we could deploy on operations from 2013 for at least 5 years and would create a significant shortfall against the current requirement in Afghanistan.

We concluded, therefore, that within available resources we needed to sustain either the Puma or the Sea King Mk4 if we were to avoid an unacceptable impact on operations. Of these two types our plans for Puma will deliver a much more capable aircraft with significantly improved performance, modern avionics (such as a state of the art navigation and radio systems) and automatic digital flight control system. We therefore concluded that investing in Puma to extend its life and deliver a step change in its capability was the best means by which we can avoid a significant reduction in Battlefield Helicopter capability from 2013 onwards. (end of excerpt)

Click here for the full report (16 pages in PDF format) on the Defence Committee website.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmdfence/381/381.pdf

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Army says it needs 20,000 more soldiers

Defence chiefs believe the Army may have to recruit an extra 20,000 soldiers if Britain is to win the wars of the 21st century.

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, UK Daily Telegraph

Published: 9:00PM GMT 27 Feb 2010


Photo: AFP/GETTY

A British Army strategy document seen by The Sunday Telegraph states that the Army may need to grow by 20 per cent from its current strength of 101,000 troops if the country is to be adequately defended from future threats.

It stated that expensive equipment may need to be sacrificed to pay for the additional soldiers.

The disclosures were made in an Army response to the Green Paper which set out the terms for the Strategic Defence Review, due to take place after the General Election.

Recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated that large numbers of troops were needed to hold and secure ground and to fight a relatively unsophisticated enemy.

Senior Army generals have already questioned the cost of a replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent or other expensive programmes such as the RAF's Eurofighter, the Royal Navy's proposed carriers and the 100 US jets accompanying them.

Senior army sources warned last week that many British military capabilities lacked relevance and were structured and equipped for the 20th-century cold war.

They said that of all weapons at the disposal of the armed forces, the Trident missile system was least likely to be used.

The document states: "There are several cost drivers in defence that grow above inflation; two of these are manpower and equipment. The (Green) Paper rightly suggests that SDR must look at these.

"In the past this cost growth has lead to reductions in numbers of platforms or personnel but the Paper is careful not to suggest that these trends are enduring.

"We should be mindful of the fact that our US, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand allies have all recently increased the size of their Armies by approaching 20 per cent.

"Indeed defence may need to prioritise manpower over equipment if that is what we require to fight wars in the 21st Century."

One Army source added that the armed forces need more surveillance and intelligence gathering equipment and fewer strike weapons.

While military chiefs should not "say goodbye to major combat operations" they should provide governments in the future with "many more options on the soft end" involving "boots on the ground".

The document also stressed the need for the military to improve its strategic communications strategy, which is widely accepted as having failed to win public support for the Afghan war.

The fight for future resources comes as Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, is expected to be forced this week to explain why defence spending was slashed just a year after the start of the war in Iraq.

The Prime Minister will be asked at the Chilcot Inquiry why Army recruiting was capped, infantry battalions were cut and the helicopter budget was slashed by £1.4 billion just as Britain became embroiled in a counter-insurgency war in southern Iraq.

Senior defence sources have told The Sunday Telegraph that Gordon Brown, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, was more interested in reaping the financial rewards of the peace dividend which accompanied the troops' pull-out from Northern Ireland than funding the Iraq war.

Under Treasury directives the Army was forced to cut the number of infantry battalions from 40 to 36; a programme to buy up to 20 Chinook helicopters was effectively cancelled; and recruiting for the infantry, which was at an all-time high in 2004, was stopped.

Defence chiefs were also told that there was no money available to replace the Army's fleet of lightly armoured Snatch Land Rovers which were regarded by troops as "death traps".

Senior defence sources said that the feeling in the Ministry of Defence was that Gordon Brown had no interest in the Army or what was happening in Iraq.

One senior source said: "The insurgency in southern Iraq was gaining pace. The Army was becoming increasingly stretched and while the government should have been investing and spending the message from The Treasury was 'pare down'."

We made various submissions to the Treasury but they were either ignored or not acted upon.

"The attitude was 'the Northern Ireland problem was now solved so you don't need so many infantry battalions'.

The Treasury wanted to cut troop numbers by 10,000 but General Sir Mike Jackson, who the then chief of the general staff, fought back and the figure was reduced to around 4,000, according to sources.

The 1998 Strategic Defence Review stated that there was a requirement for an additional 20 Chinooks, but a £1.4 billion Treasury-imposed cut to the equipment budget in 2004 meant that the procurement programme was shelved.

The consequences of that single act came home to roost in Afghanistan between 2006 and 2009 when a lack of helicopters forced troops to travel by vehicle at a time when the Taliban had switched tactics and the use of improvised explosive devices surged.

[buglerbilly]

From The Sunday Times February 28, 2010

Top general says Afghanistan army in morale crisis

THE head of the army has warned that British troops are facing a crisis of deteriorating morale on the home front that risks undermining the war in Afghanistan.

In a confidential draft memo prepared for ministers, General Sir David Richards, chief of the general staff (CGS), said that recent cuts to the defence budget are having a “cumulative and corrosive effect on our soldiers and their families”.

Cuts to housing, shortages of training equipment and even the cancellation of sports events between soldiers’ tours of duty were making them and their families feel “undervalued”, the army chief wrote.

The leaked memo will be seized on by the Tories as opening a new front in the tussle between army chiefs and ministers over the politically sensitive issue of defence cuts.

It echoes the row last year when Richards’s predecessor, General Sir Richard Dannatt, stepped down after speaking out about equipment shortages as well as poor pay and conditions. It later emerged that government figures had tried to smear him over his expenses.

A senior military commander emphasised yesterday that it was not Richards’s intention to criticise ministers: “He’s not whingeing. He’s simply trying to flag up what he believes is a vital issue that needs their urgent attention.”

In the memo to the defence board, which comprises ministers and service chiefs, Richards shifts the focus of criticism from the war effort in Afghanistan to the treatment of troops on their return home.

While there had been “significant progress” on the front line, Richards said, the treatment of soldiers when they returned for 24 months between tours is so poor that it is threatening to undermine the war effort.

Marked “restricted”, the memo reports a summary of an internal “poll” of 5,000 soldiers and their families at units in Britain, Germany and Cyprus over the past four months.

The survey was discussed at the executive committee of the army board this month. Its results appear to be so alarming that Richards decided to alert ministers to its key findings.

“My greatest concern ... is the deteriorating experience of soldiers and their families ... between tours which, the [survey] team reports, is disaffecting attitudes, damaging morale and risks undermining our ability to sustain the campaign . . .” he wrote.

“We need our soldiers to be ready, mentally and physically, to endure repeated tours in Afghanistan, in a harsh environment, with the real prospect of significant casualties each time.

“To maintain the necessary morale and cohesion, they must see tangible signs between tours that they and their families are valued.”

Last July the army was forced to make savings of £43m to help the Ministry of Defenc keep within budget. In October a further £54m cut was announced so resources could be focused on the war in Afghanistan. About £14m of those cuts meant delays to upgrades to living quarters for more than 4,000 troops.

The memo says: “The team reports the cumulative and corrosive effect that [such cuts] are having on our soldiers and their families.

“As CGS, I register an early concern about the impact on morale, the potentially severe downstream impact on retention and our ability to sustain the campaign in the longer term.”

An army spokesman said: “The report notes that soldiers feel increasingly well supported and resourced on operations and praises medical care in-theatre and in the UK.

“It also relays concerns about the effect of financial pressure on activity in between operational tours and provides early warning of the resulting impact on morale. Resources are tight at the moment and Afghanistan is the main effort.”

[buglerbilly]

MoD Wastes Millions On Unproductive Procurement, Says Defence Committee

(Source: House of Commons Defence Committee; issued March 4, 2010)


MoD’s decision to delay the Royal Navy’s future carrier program at a cost of £674 million comes in for special criticism by MPs in their annual report on defense equipment. (UK MoD photo)

The MoD is spending hundreds of millions of pounds a year on unproductive activities because it has commissioned more work than it can afford to pay for, says the Defence Select Committee in its Report, Defence Equipment 2010, which is published today.

In its Report, the Committee notes that both the NAO Major Projects Report 2009 and Bernard Gray’s Review of Acquisition for the MoD have confirmed that the MoD’s ten year equipment programme is unaffordable. Furthermore the MoD’s practice of delaying projects so as to reduce costs in the early years of a programme is adding to overall procurement costs and so further increases the funding gap.

The best example of this can be seen in the delay of the Future Carrier Programme which has achieved short term savings but bigger long term cost increases. The £674 million-plus cost of delay represents over ten per cent of the current estimated total cost of £5.2 billion for the carriers. The Report says that such cost increases are unsustainable.

The Committee considers it shocking that the MoD has apparently made no attempt to calculate the full extent of the costs of delays and that it has therefore taken decisions to delay projects without understanding the full implications of those decisions.

The Report also criticises the management of the lengthy development of the FRES programme to produce a new family of armoured vehicles - now effectively closed. There has clearly been a change of direction with the armoured vehicle strategy, although it is not evident whether this is because of the funding gap, or because a considered analysis has rendered the original concept no longer appropriate. Chairman of the Committee, James Arbuthnot, says “We have tried on many occasions in the past to elicit details about FRES from the MoD without ever receiving clear answers. We can only conclude, with regret, that the MoD has none to give.”

During the inquiry, the MoD told the Committee that it had reduced the overall equipment funding gap from £21 billion in 2008 to £6 billion in 2009 but could not explain how this had been achieved. (Emphasis added—Ed.)

Chairman of the Committee, James Arbuthnot, says, “The Defence Committee cannot fulfil its scrutiny role for Parliament if the MoD refuses to provide such information about its activities. The MOD will need to provide the next Defence Committee with more accurate and complete information.”

The Report notes that while the MoD’s Acquisition Reform Strategy includes a commitment to increase transparency, it provides no details of any concrete steps or milestones for achieving that ambition.

The research and technology budget has fallen from £540 million in 2007-08 to £471 million in 2009-10 and will decrease further in 2010-11 to £439 million. Fifteen years ago, MoD research expenditure was £665 million, which equates to £947 million in 2008/09 terms.

Chairman of the Committee, James Arbuthnot, says “Spending less on research and technology will make the UK defence industrial base progressively less competitive and will make the Defence Industrial Strategy inoperable. To compromise the future development of defence technology, in order to make proportionately small short term contributions to the management of the equipment programme funding gap, is ill-judged. The research programme cannot be turned on and off at short notice and the benefits can only be realised with a consistent and long term commitment of resources.”

The Committee commends the Government for commissioning and publishing the Gray report, and welcomes the commitments set out in the MoD’s Acquisition Reform Strategy for addressing Gray’s recommendations. It notes, however, that while the MoD has come clean about the extent of its problems with the equipment programme, it will now have to work hard to demonstrate that it will not just return to business as usual, but will instead implement effective reform.

Click here for the full report (190 pages in PDF format) on the Defence Committee website.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmdfence/99/99.pdf

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Army denied vital equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, claims former SAS head

British troops were deprived of the right equipment to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and were still being hampered by a lack of resources, the former head of special forces has claimed.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Published: 10:21PM GMT 04


The coffins of Private Martin Kinggett, Sergeant Paul Fox, Private Carlo Apolis and SAC Luke Southgate carried onto an RAF C17 at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan Photo: MoD/GETTY Sir Graeme is regarded as one of the Army?s most influential officers Photo: EDDIE MULHOLLAND


Sir Graeme is regarded as one of the Army?s most influential officers Photo: EDDIE MULHOLLAND

In a withering assessment of the “doomed” state of the military, the recently retired Lt Gen Sir Graeme Lamb said that the SAS had been denied even Vietnam-era equipment that could have saved lives.

Resources remained insufficient to fight current and future conflicts, with much of the Army’s equipment “either broken or lacking”, he warned.

Sir Graeme’s attack, in a speech to senior officers, is disclosed as Gordon Brown faces questions at the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.

The inquiry has been told that the Armed Forces were forced to cope without a wide range of equipment because of a lack of funds from the Treasury when Mr Brown was chancellor.

Senior defence sources sought to limit the damage caused by Sir Graeme’s comments.

They claimed that Sir Graeme’s views were “outdated” and did not reflect the “dramatic” changes that had taken place since General Sir David Richards took over as Chief of the General Staff in August.

Sir Graeme accepted that, under Sir David, Afghanistan had been pushed to the top of the agenda and he had forced “the pace of change”.

The former director of special forces is regarded as one of the Army’s most influential officers. During a distinguished career, he was in charge of both the SAS and the Special Boat Service before retiring three months ago to take up a post with the American General Stanley McChrystal as head of the counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan.

In his speech, Sir Graeme said that politicians and the Civil Service bore “considerable blame” for the decline of the military. He said that the Iraq conflict had “tarnished” Britain’s standing and, until recently, Afghanistan had been “stumbling towards failure”.

The Armed Forces were “pretty much doomed on our current course and thinking” and would become the “dumpster of irrelevancy” unless they changed direction radically and gained the right equipment to fight today’s wars, he said. The focus on investing in ships, aircraft and tanks had endangered lives because it had left forces such as the SAS inadequately equipped with basic equipment, he claimed.

He warned that the Armed Forces were “clearly in decline” and were increasingly seen as “irrelevant” by the public and politicians. Sir Graeme disclosed that the lack of equipment had compromised the Bravo Two Zero SAS raid into Iraq in 1991, which included the soldier-turned-author Andy McNab. Helicopters were not equipped with a basic infra-red device to allow pilots to see at night — a piece of Vietnam-era kit — which meant that the eight-man patrol was left on the ground at the mercy of Saddam Hussein’s army. Three men died. A decade later, helicopters were still not equipped with the infra-red equipment, which almost led to the loss of two Chinooks as special forces tried to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. This was an example of a military that could do nothing more than “band-aid prevention”, said Sir Graeme.

The Ministry of Defence was buying equipment “we probably do not need” and unless it “mothball, cancel or break our procurement overdraft or sit down and reshape the force we so desperately need, we are unlikely to do anything”, he warned.

“The future is bloody grim either way,” he said, “and the Reaper, unless you are prepared to prevent him, is probably going to join us for dinner.” Sir Graeme said that the military had to share the blame for the situation. The officer, known for his straight-talking, said that the Army’s leadership needed to “look no further than the mirror to identify the guilty party”.

Sir Graeme, who has been credited by the American General David Petraeus as a key architect in defeating the Iraqi insurgency, said that the Army’s leadership was at a “crossroads” where either “you play safe and join us old blokes or cry havoc and do your duty”. “We in uniform, the Armed Forces of this nation, are at fault for failing to recognise the changing character of the threats we face and then to do our duty and to set our store by the defence of this realm: all in all a somewhat damning indictment,” he said.

He added: “What you face is simply a moral challenge, a test of will and commitment that if you believe that all is not well – change it; do not wrestle with the sum of your fears; but embrace the course you believe to be right and charge down it; forge the trail and drag the rest with you.”

Sir Graeme’s speech comes at a time of intense debate into how the Armed Forces should be structured to face tomorrow’s threats.

The Army, which has done the majority of the fighting over the past decade, is at loggerheads with the Navy and RAF who want to retain the expensive warship, submarine and aircraft programmes.

The Army says it requires much greater investment in land forces to fight wars that will be similar to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sir Graeme later said that because the personnel in all three services were “exceptional” they deserved to get “what they need to meet both the challenges we face and will face”.

Defence sources said last night that the Army would undergo a major overhaul if Sir David won the argument for more of the defence budget to be diverted to land forces.

Responding to Sir Graeme’s comments, Sir David said: “The views expressed by Lt Gen Lamb reflect those of a distinguished but retired general speaking at a private, off-the-record gathering with the aim of causing controversy and provoking debate. In that he was successful though his comments were not supported. I would like to make it clear that, as I saw in Afghanistan recently, the Army is fit, equipped, motivated and ready for any challenge.

“Furthermore, it is clear from support for military events and charities throughout the country that the people have never held the Army, or indeed the wider Armed Forces, in higher regard.”

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Rotor Spin

Posted by Douglas Barrie at 3/5/2010 6:08 AM CST



In another Sir Humphrey moment worthy of “Yes Minister” the UK Defense Ministry now seems unwilling to confirm its own numbers when it comes to helicopters.

Tucked away in the annex to the government’s response to the Parliament’s Defense Committee report on helicopters is the statement that “The plan we [the government] announced in December deceases slightly this number (to 126 aircraft).

The previous plan for the battlefield support helicopter role was to have 132 by 2020: 48 Chinook, 28 Merlin, 28 Puma, and 28 Future Medium Helicopters, according to the government.

Asked about the revised 126 figure, and its breakdown into types, however, the Ministry says it “can’t confirm numbers until Main Gate [procurement decision point] is reached.”

It also appeared to be the turn of rotary license in the House of Commons on March 1.

A Conservative Party motion attacked the government over what it claims was a failure “properly to fund the armed forces for wartime operations” including what it viewed as just over a $2 billion cut in the helicopter budget in 2004.

Debating the issue Bob Ainsworth, the Secretary of State For Defense, put forward an amendment to the opposition motion which included noting that: “the Ministry of Defense has brought into service…171 new helicopters…”.

Notably there was no obvious period circumscribing when the “new” helicopters began to be brought into service. Asked to clarify the 171 number the ministry said this included 67 Apache and 44 Merlin Mk1 helicopters. The prime contract for the Merlin Mk1 was placed in 1991, with the Apache contract signed in 1996. Both were signed by Conservative governments.

Picture credit AgustaWestland

[buglerbilly]

Iraq inquiry: Army big guns attack Gordon Brown’s defence budget claims

Gordon Brown has been denounced by military chiefs for claiming he gave the Armed Forces all the money they needed.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent, UK Daily Telegraph

Published: 10:00PM GMT 05 Mar 2010

Link to this video The Prime Minister told the Iraq Inquiry on Friday that defence chiefs "welcomed" his decisions on spending, a claim that was later angrily disputed.

Mr Brown also faced criticism after he appeared to blame military commanders for the use of Snatch Land Rovers, which have been linked to more than 30 British deaths.

Appearing before Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the Iraq war and its aftermath, Mr Brown repeatedly insisted that as Chancellor, he had always given the Armed Forces everything they asked for.

“Every request that the military commanders made to us for equipment was answered. No request was ever turned down,” Mr Brown said. “We had a rising defence budget.”

The inquiry has heard evidence from former ministers, officials and commanders that the spending allocation for the Ministry of Defence in 2004, a year after the war began, was inadequate.

General Lord Walker, chief of the defence staff from 2003 to 2006, has said that defence chiefs threatened to resign over the cuts they had to make because of the 2004 settlement.

Mr Brown insisted that the chiefs had been happy with that budget.

"The spending review of 2004 was welcomed by the chiefs of our defence staff,” he said. “They were satisfied at the end of the review that they had the resources they needed.”

That claim has been challenged by senior military figures, with one former head of the Armed Forces calling it “disingenuous.”

“To say Gordon Brown has given the military all they asked for is simply not true,” Lord Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff, writes in The Daily Telegraph.

“He cannot get away with saying I gave them everything they asked for, that is simply disingenuous.

A senior military figure involved in the 2004 spending talks said Mr Brown’s claims were “nonsense.”

The commander said: “To say it was ‘welcome’ is to use a great deal of poetic licence.

“To say the outcome of that process was ‘welcome’ is frankly hyperbole.”

Major General Patrick Cordingley, a commander in the first Gulf War, said: “The real truth is the Armed Forces are underfunded.”

The inquiry has also heard from Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, that he had to make “difficult cuts” as a result of the spending settlement he received from Mr Brown’s Treasury in 2004.

And Sir Kevin Tebbit, the former permanent secretary at the MoD, has said Mr Brown “guillotined” his budget and left him operating a “crisis budget”

Mr Brown admitted that the MoD had not been allowed to spend as much as it had planned. But he insisted there had been not cuts.

“In an ideal world, I know our commanders would like to have even more equipment and spend even more,” he said. “But this suggestion that they had their budget cut – in fact, they had a rising budget.”

Asked if he was aware that the chiefs had threatened to resign over the 2004 budget, Mr Brown said: “I can’t remember all the conversations I had.”

Liam Fox, the Conservative shadow defence secretary, accused Mr Brown of a “pathetic” attempt to avoid his responsibilities and said the Prime Minister’s evidence “does not add up.”

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, said Mr Brown’s claim “flies in the face” of the evidence.

During almost five hours of evidence, Mr Brown also faced questions submitted to the inquiry by the families of soldiers killed in lightly-armoured Snatch vehicles in Iraq.

Families and commanders have said the Snatches were only used in Iraq because the Army had not been provided with properly armoured vehicles.

Mr Brown said that as soon as commanders asked for armoured vehicles, he provided funding immediately. “The first time the request was made, we met it immediately. Once these new vehicles were asked for, they were offered,” he said.

Asked why he believed commanders had continued to use vehicles that were potentially unsafe, Mr Brown said: “It is not for me to make the military decisions on the ground about the use of particular vehicles.”

Sue Smith, whose son Pte Phillip Hewett died in a Snatch in Iraq in 2005, said she was angry that Mr Brown was blaming the Army.

She said: 'I feel as though he is trying to shift the blame. I just think it is very low.

“Phillip's commander on the ground died with him in the vehicle. I am sure if he had had other options he would have used them. There was simply a lack of options.”

[SteveJH]

Mr Brown admitted that the MoD had not been allowed to spend as much as it had planned. But he insisted there had been not cuts.

No cuts? From wiki because i'm too lazy to find the actual source material and write it out myself...


British Army

*
o Manpower reduced by 1,000.
o Restructuring will cut four infantry battalions otherwise tasked to Northern Ireland, and the manpower redistributed elsewhere.
o Army High Velocity Missile fire units to be halved, which would lead to the re-role of two TA Royal Artillery regiments.
o The re-role of a Challenger 2 regiment into an armoured reconnaissance regiment and several AS-90 batteries to a light gun regiment, into what would become 19 Light Brigade (see Future Army Structure).
o Withdrawal of seven Challenger 2 squadrons and six AS-90 self-propelled gun batteries (approx. 84 tanks and 48 AS90s).
o Infantry battalions to be incorporated into new, large, multi-battalion regiments.
o Creation of three light armoured squadrons that will support development of the next generation of armoured vehicles, the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES).

Royal Air Force

*
o Manpower reduced by 7,000.
o Early withdrawal of the 41-strong SEPECAT Jaguar force by 2007 and closure of Jaguar's operating base, RAF Coltishall, Norfolk.
o Current Nimrod MR.2 maritime patrol aircraft fleet to be reduced from 21 to 16.
o Reduction in the purchase of re-manufactured Nimrod MRA.4s from 18 to 16 (eventually 12) aircraft.[i]now nine?[i]
o Reduction of Tornado F3 force by one squadron (16 aircraft) in preparation for replacement with Typhoon.
o Reduction of 6 Puma helicopters of No. 230 Squadron RAF based in Northern Ireland.
o Reduction in Rapier missile launchers from 48 to 24 and transfer to the Army Royal Artillery, and the disbandment of four RAF Regiment squadrons which operated Rapier.
o Additional procurement numbers of Hawk 128 training aircraft above an initial batch of 20 to be decided upon in 2005.
o Typhoon purchase confirmed, Tranche 2 contract delayed until December 2004 when cost/capability issues were resolved.
o Purchase of 4 Boeing C-17s operated by the RAF at the end of their lease period including one additional aircraft for a total fleet of 5.

Royal Navy

*
o Manpower reduced by 1,500.
o Reduced purchase of Type 45 destroyers from 12 to 8 (eventually 6) vessels.
o Reduced force of Type 23 frigates from 16 to 13 vessels by March 2006.
o Reduced force of nuclear attack submarine fleet (SSNs) from 12 to 8 boats by December 2008.
o Reduced force of mine countermeasure vessels from 19 to 16 by April 2005.
o Northern Ireland patrol fleet of three reconfigured Hunt class mine hunters to be decommissioned by April 2007.
o Early retirement of the three oldest Type 42 destroyers.
o Royal Navy Future Carrier (CVF) purchase confirmed.


Quite a few other RN projects delayed or cancelled as well...MARS, Casualty receiving ships, Argus replacement, FSC. Oh, and SHAR retirement and reduction of overall Harrier force isnt mentioned either....

[buglerbilly]

From The Sunday Times March 7, 2010

Ministers ‘let army homes fall into ruin’

Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Michael Smith

MINISTERS are being blamed for allowing thousands of soldiers’ homes to fall into ruin and disrepair after they were sold to the private sector in a £1.6 billion deal.

Guy Hands, one of the City’s best-known financiers, masterminded the agreement to buy 57,600 homes from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and then rent them back to troops.

The MoD remained responsible for the properties’ upkeep and claimed that the extra cash from the deal would provide badly needed funds to refurbish them. But it has emerged that the government diverted most of the money elsewhere.

Despite the payment of £1.67 billion to HM Treasury for the homes and a profit share of £156m on the sale of surplus properties, many are dilapidated and unfit to live in. New figures show that the MoD has been spending as little as £4.4m a year on maintenance and refurbishment.

Julie McCarthy, chief executive of the Army Families Federation, said her organisation received thousands of complaints every year about the poor conditions of these properties. “ been problems with damp, leaks, broken boilers and the general condition of the homes,” she said.

“The sale was supposed to provide the funds to address these problems, but there has been little evidence of that.”

Details of how little the government has spent on the properties emerged last week after The Sunday Times reported that General Sir David Richards, the head of the army, was concerned that many troops felt undervalued because of cuts to housing and shortages in other areas.

In the mid-1990s, military homes around the country needed tens of millions of pounds spent on repairs. The Conservative administration agreed to sell off the housing stock to the highest bidder, partly to raise funds for a refurbishment programme.

Hands, then heading a finance team at Nomura, the Japanese investment bank, put together a deal in November 1996 whereby the government would be paid for the homes, which would then be rented to troops and their families at below market rates. Any surplus properties would be sold off, with the government receiving a slice of the profits.

Hands subsequently spun out his investment team from Nomura into the private equity firm Terra Firma.

Within three years the Nomura-led consortium made more than £479m in profits from the investment vehicle, Annington Homes. Overnight the company became one of the largest owners of private residential property in Britain.

In theory, the soldiers and their families should have gained from the deal as hundreds of millions of pounds flowed into the government’s coffers. It has now been confirmed that Labour ministers allocated only a fraction of that sum to be spent on the housing that had generated the windfall.

Figures released in a parliamentary answer last week show that between 2003 and 2008, the annual expenditure on maintenance and upgrade ranged from £4.4m to £13.9m.

Ministers insist they are allocating additional funds to improve the quality of the homes and say that more than £27m was spent in the last financial year.

A spokesman for Hands, who moved to Guernsey to escape the new 50% income tax rate, said Terra Firma was paid about £100,000 a year to manage Nomura’s interest in Annington Homes. He said Hands was not paid any success fee for the initial deal.

Annington Homes said: “Annington has fulfilled its part of the contract, paying the Treasury more than £1.82 billion. What the government chooses to do with the money is a matter for it alone.”

The MoD has declined to comment.

[buglerbilly]

From The Times March 8, 2010

Brown accused of breaking promise for new equipment in Afghanistan

Mr Brown has been criticised over past failures to upgrade armoured vehicles such as Snatch Land Rovers, said to offer poor protection from roadside bombs

Tom Coghlan

Gordon Brown was criticised by the Conservatives yesterday after it was claimed that the Government had merely repeated an earlier announcement to replace Snatch Land Rovers with new vehicles — while cutting the order by half.

Officials travelling with the Prime Minister in Helmand province indicated on Saturday that £100 million would be spent on 200 new vehicles to replace remaining Snatch Land Rovers, under the Urgent Operational Requirement budget.

However, Conservative officials said that the order was simply a repetition of an old commitment made in December 2008 by John Hutton, Defence Secretary at the time, for a programme to replace Snatch and the upgraded Snatch Vixen with “the next generation of Light Protected Patrol Vehicles (LPPV)”. A tender notice for up to 400 LPPVs was sent out in February 2009.

“We have been waiting for years for replacements to the Snatch Land Rovers,” the Shadow Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, told The Andrew Marr Show on BBC1. “There is one very curious element about this, because the public tender that was put out was for 400 vehicles to replace Snatch. The Prime Minister yesterday said it would be 200. What happened to the other 200? Tomorrow in Parliament I will be tabling questions to find out whether this is yet another cut to the equipment on Treasury orders.”

Last night Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, defended the Government. “Liam Fox is wrong. As with most military procurements, exactly how many we order and exactly when we order them will not be finalised until the last contract is signed. But we have not decided to reduce the overall requirement and Liam Fox is entirely wrong to claim otherwise.

"We decided to procure 200 LPPV urgently under a Urgent Operational Requirement as soon as the design was ready, because we are determined — as with other recent new vehicles — to get them out there as quickly as possible. In relation to how many LPPV we need more widely, potentially going beyond Afghanistan, the position remains as in December 2008.”

Campaigners have spent five years calling for the Snatch to be withdrawn from service because of the poor protection it offers from roadside bombs. A total of 37 British soldiers have been killed while using the Snatch in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[buglerbilly]

Selections May Come Soon on U.K. Frigates, AFVs

By andrew chuter

Published: 15 Mar 2010 16:19 Print | EmailLONDON - A deal to push ahead with development of a new class of frigates and selection of a contractor to build a family of specialist armored fighting vehicles could be made in the next few days, the British defense secretary signaled during a parliamentary debate here today.

When the government called a defense debate for March 15, political analysts and others wondered whether the MoD might use the opportunity to announce significant program awards just days before it is due to call a general election. During the event, the minister mentioned only two programs by name in his opening speech - the Future Surface Combatant and the specialist vehicle element of the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) - but indicated these would be among announcements on several equipment programs in the next few days.

An assessment phase deal lasting about four years and costing in excess of 120 million pounds ($182.5 million) is expected to be signed with BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions to begin development on the first of two new types of frigate destined to replace the Royal Navy's Type 22 and Type 23 frigates.

The Navy classifies the vessel, known as C1, as designed for anti-submarine and precision strike missions. The class of warships would be known as the Type 26.

A second variant, the C2, is described as a general purpose warship. That's only in the concept phase and is not likely to be part of the deal soon to be announced by the MoD.

The British plan to build 10 C1s and eight C2s, although those numbers could change after an upcoming strategic defense review promised by all the major political parties in the election.

A BAE spokesman declined to comment beyond saying, "We continue to work closely with the MoD to assess and deliver current and future naval requirements."

Earlier this month, Defence Procurement Minister Quentin Davies said the MoD had discussed with Australia and New Zealand ways to work together on the new-generation warships and a third class of vessels covering mine countermeasures, patrol and hydrographic roles.

The winner of the FRES specialist vehicle contract has already been announced by the media.

The Financial Times reported March 13 that General Dynamics UK's Ascod SV has beaten out BAE Systems CV90 to develop a new class of scout vehicles to replace the CVR(T) machines used by the British Army.

BAE's revised production offer today to bring 800 additional jobs to the United Kingdom if it secured the deal was a further pointer the selection was heading in General Dynamics' direction.

Under the company's original plan, most of the work on the vehicle would have been done in Sweden, where BAE has its CV90 production line.

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth moved to scotch any debate emerging over jobs, telling parliamentarians that, while he was mindful of the employment situation, the decision was based overwhelmingly on capability.

Both bids would bring a lot of jobs to the United Kingdom, he said.

The British arm of the U.S. weapon giant is expected to be named as preferred bidder by the MoD to design and develop the scout, repair, recovery and protected mobility variants of the tracked specialist vehicles known as Recce Block 1. A production contract will follow with the aim of getting the first vehicles to front line units by 2015.

The winner will also provide the common base platform for later blocks of vehicles covering direct fire, command and control, an armored bridge-layer and other roles.

Previous estimates put the value of the FRES SV work at 4 billion pounds, but like the Future Surface Combatant, the timing and numbers of the FRES SV requirement may be subject to change as a result of the strategic defense review.

The government previously awarded General Dynamics the eight-wheel-drive utility element of the FRES program. That was eventually shelved as priorities changed toward the specialist vehicle and the government and contractor failed to agree to terms for the transfer of intellectual property rights.

Ainsworth didn't mention the Army's Warrior infantry fighting vehicle upgrade, which is being fought over by BAE and Lockheed Martin. The program has encountered affordability issues, with the MoD's Investment Approvals Board considering the funding gap and some technical issues last week for the second time in little more than a week.

Media reports say the upgrade program will be delayed for at least a year.

The defense debate was continuing as this story was filed.

[buglerbilly]

Gordon Brown admits: I was wrong on defence spending

Gordon Brown has admitted he was wrong to claim that he increased defence spending in real terms every year.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent

Published: 12:26PM GMT 17 Mar 2010

Link to this video The Prime Minister said that claims he had made in the House of Commons and in evidence to Sir John Chilcot's Iraq Inquiry had been incorrect.

Mr Brown, who has faced intense criticism over his support for the Armed Forces, had repeatedly insisted that as Chancellor, he made real increases in the defence budget every year.

However, offcial figures from the Ministry of Defence show that, allowing for inflation, its budget fell in five years: 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002 and 2007.

Challenged about his claim during Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Brown made a rare admission of errror.

"I do accept that in one or two years, defence expenditure did not rise in real terms," he told MPs.

Mr Brown said is now writing to Sir John Chilcot to amend his evidence to the inquiry.

The Prime Minister's admission is a political victory for David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who challenged him about the figures last week in the Commons.

By amending his evidence to the Chilcot panel, Mr Brown may bolster the case for recalling him for another evidence session later this year.

[buglerbilly]

U.K. Opposition Cries Foul On Pre-election Awards

By andrew chuter

Published: 19 Mar 2010 18:38

LONDON - With the U.K. Ministry of Defence set to announce a number of major contract awards next week, Britain's main opposition party, the Conservatives, have criticized industry and civil servants for helping rush the deals through just days before the Labour government is expected to call a general election.

Speaking to industry executives at a March 19 event organized by the ADS trade association, shadow Defence Minister Liam Fox warned companies that any deals struck in the next few days would be re-examined if the Tories win an election expected May 6.

"We will examine all the programs in the light of the tests we have set out," Fox said. "I think it is quite wrong for the civil service to be going along with the government signing up contracts using future taxpayers' money. It's wrong for industry to be going along with projects at this point, so close to a general election, when everyone knows we need a major [strategic defense] review on the other side of the election. I hope everyone will reflect strongly on that."

The Tories have set out five criteria that equipment programs will have to pass before they are approved. Fox said these are affordability, capability, adaptability, exportability and interoperability.

Like the rest of the MoD equipment programs, the new deals will have to survive a strategic defense review committed to by all the major parties here for after the election.

Fox said it is inappropriate for Labour Party members to be making pledges with future taxpayers' money that they know they may never have to fulfill.

"They have no money for the current programs in the budget, and are now promising to spend future taxpayers' money on other programs," he said. "They are like bankrupt shopaholics having their last binge before going to jail."

The Ministry of Defence is expected to name General Dynamics UK early next week as the preferred contractor for design and development of a tracked scout vehicle and other variants. The vehicles are included in what is known as the Recce Block 1 phase of the Future Rapid Effects Systems specialist vehicles requirement.

Sandy Wilson, General Dynamics UK's president and managing director, speaking after Fox's speech, said his company's ASCOD SV vehicle would pass all the five tests set out by the Conservatives.

BAE Systems attempted to derail the FRES SV deal last week with an offer to bring more jobs to its British factories, after it became apparent the ASCOD SV had beaten BAE's CV90 to the selection.

That effort quickly fizzled out. Now, say executives, the best BAE can hope for is a rethink on armored fighting vehicle requirements by the MoD as part of the strategic defense review.

The FRES announcement could be followed by an assessment phase award to BAE Systems for the first part of a new frigate program known as Future Surface Combatant and other deals. These possibly include L-3 Communications being named to replace Britain's Nimrod R1 signals intelligence aircraft with its Boeing 707-based Rivet Joint system.

It's not clear whether the government will make an announcement about the selection of a contractor to upgrade the British Army's Warrior infantry fighting vehicle. BAE and Lockheed Martin are vying for that deal.

Doubts have been raised within the MoD about the affordability of that program at a time when there is huge pressure on defense equipment spending.

Industry executives here are saying a delay to the program of about a year is looking increasingly likely.

[buglerbilly]

Our defence policy is caught between pride and guiltFear of looking weak drives everything. Britain keeps buying the wrong equipment at the wrong price for the wrong wars

Julian Glover guardian.co.uk,

Sunday 21 March 2010 22.00 GMT

Glover is a complete idiot and some of his comments in here are so stupid as to be borderline moronic...............what a prick! Grand-standing when you have the knowledge and education of a sparrow...........

Excitement is seductive. Land by Merlin helicopter on the deck of an aircraft carrier, as I did last week – the ship heeling back and forth to dodge the threat of missiles, the crew at action stations in white anti-flash suits, Harrier jets roaring up the ramp – and I defy you not to share the thrill. No matter that the carrier is (by world standards) small, its handful of planes part-time and the conflict I saw just a training exercise in the North Sea, rescuing pretend British citizens trapped in the rebel state of Little Caledonia (or Morpeth, as road maps call it).

HMS Ark Royal is still magnificent, the flagship of the ragged remains of the Royal Navy. But will it be the last great British ship? The navy, of course, claims not. Up the east coast in Rosyth they are welding together the hull sections of HMS Queen Elizabeth, a spectacular 65,000-tonne vessel that comes at a spectacular price: £5bn (and probably more, plus £12bn for the jets) for a pair of carriers that would make Britain a maritime power for decades. The project is midway – engineers will start transferring to the new ship in 2012 and she is due to come into service in 2016. The bow has just been finished and a billion pounds' worth of materials bought.

All this inevitably makes the ship a prime target for the sort of last-minute cuts that are a hallmark of the idiocy of defence procurement. While Labour says it will continue construction (taking place, after all, on Gordon Brown's constituency doorstep), the Tories will only admit to being "well-disposed". That sounds like a cut: of one of the two ships on order, or their Joint Strike Fighter jets, or both.

Since 1945 Britain has being buying too big and then losing its nerve. We have the appetite of a superpower and the stomach of a minnow. We want to fly the flag but not pay the price. You'll never find the foreign secretary brave enough to say this country is too poor or too weak to intervene somewhere, or the defence secretary who looks – as his education or health counterparts do – to modest Scandinavia for a model.

Defence policy is caught in a toxic mix of pride and guilt. Britain always buys the wrong equipment at the wrong price for the wrong wars: too few helicopters, too few ships and too many nuclear bombs and fast jets. The Eurofighter project is a disaster of unknown cost, since the MoD ceased releasing figures once they passed £20bn. Only four Typhoons (as the plane has been rebranded) have ever been deployed outside Britain: to the Falklands, where they safeguard sheep and penguins. That is about all they are good for, since they were designed three decades ago to fight the Soviets.

Brown was recently caught out misleading the Chilcot inquiry over military spending, claiming it had risen in real terms when it actually fell in four budgets – but in the defence world, almost everything anyone says turns out to be wrong. There hasn't been a defence review since 1998. Bob Ainsworth's green paper, published the other day, is empty of ideas, but he is only the latest in a series of defence secretaries who have either been clueless or who have quit – like Geoff Hoon – to make "embarrassing" (his word) amounts of money from contractors.

Even now, with the deficit in crisis, the prime minister is blowing billions on Trident replacement for fear of looking weak, and the Tories are going along with it for the same reason. No one dares raise their eyes from our £5bn-a-year war in Afghanistan. The British army will be brilliantly equipped to fight in Helmand at just the time we pull out. We sent Viking troop carriers designed for the Arctic into the Afghan desert. Soon, no doubt, we will send desert trucks sliding on to ice.

The service chiefs are squabbling, their briefing and counter-briefing vicious. The army thinks the navy is a relic, while the navy thinks the same of the airforce. The RAF has its eye on space warfare. Out on Ark Royal, men and women of daunting enthusiasm are trying to keep their bit of the military running, though there aren't funds – or the planes to land on the ships – now that the Sea Harriers have been scrapped. There will be a strategic defence review soon, but its terms will be constrained by the budget that will come first; and caught in the twin headlights of Afghanistan and public Euroscepticism, no one in any party can say anything sensible about foreign policy.

We should assess what we want to do and what we can afford. I arrived on the Ark Royal determined not to be seduced by military enthusiasms. I departed, as convinced by what must go as what must stay. Trident replacement should go; Britain is being lumbered with the ability to obliterate all humanity, and a conventional force stripped to the bone to pay for it. Keep the existing nuclear capacity if you must; or join up with the French; or kill it as cold war relic. Refuse to buy a single extra Eurofighter.

Prune (without dropping) plans to buy the JSF jet. As for the new carriers, they are, unlike much defence equipment, adaptable and manoeuvrable. They could sail to the rescue in Haiti or feed the hungry in Mogadishu as easily as obliterate Tehran. We should build and deploy the first, and persuade the French (whose own grandiose carrier doesn't work) to complete and equip the second: a shared fleet for two European nations that have yet to reconcile themselves to their more modest place in the world.

[Zen9]

Yea gods alive, where do these idiots come from?!

This guy is truely ignorant.

And yet.....he is correct we should continue with the CVF project, but hearing support from this sort of chap rather does depress me for why he's doing it and what he expects in return.

And people will read this and think themselves informed!

[buglerbilly]

Rebalancing Army manpower

A Defence Policy and Business news article

22 Mar 10

In order to be better balanced to meet the challenges of current operations, the Army is making adjustments to its structures which is likely to result in some soldiers having to leave the Army through what are known as Manning Control Points.


Junior Soldiers on parade at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate
[Picture: Crown Copyright/MOD 2009]

The Army is closer to full strength than it has been for a number of years. Within that total number the Army needs to ensure that it has the right balance of skills in certain trades and experience, in terms of length of service, rank, performance and long-term potential, to meet the challenges of current operations in Afghanistan.

This balance is also crucial to preserving opportunities for progression through the ranks, which is an important factor in the Army's ability to retain those with the greatest potential.

As well as addressing long-standing structural imbalances, the Army needs to ensure that it organises its manpower in a way that enables it to better support operations in Afghanistan.

This requires a degree of adjustment between ranks, trades and skills.

In part this will be achieved through retraining, but some soldiers are likely to have to leave the Army through what are known as Manning Control Points (MCPs).

MCPs are an effective and focused means of achieving these important adjustments. They are part of soldiers' Terms and Conditions of Service and have been used when required since the days of National Service.

Although they have not been needed recently when the Army has been under strength, over the last 25 years well over 3,000 soldiers have been discharged using this mechanism.

With the Army now close to full strength, Manning Control Points are a necessary tool to enable the Army to manage its structure more effectively.

While Manning Control Points give the Army the opportunity of terminating the service of soldiers at the end of three, six, nine, 12 or 15 years' service, the current intention is to focus on the 12- and 15-year groups only.

Commander-in-Chief Land Forces, General Sir Peter Wall, said:

"The Army is close to being fully manned for the first time in some years. This is great news, but size is only part of the picture. We need to ensure that there is the right balance of soldiers in different arms and services, ranks and trades, so that we are in the best possible shape for current operations.

"The fact is that the Army has grown unevenly and we now need to make some adjustments.

"Part of this is about giving some of our people the opportunity to retrain with the Service, so that they can make their contributions in areas where our need is greater.

"But a relatively small number of soldiers will also be required to leave the Army under the Manning Control Points mechanism in order to balance the Army.

"Manning Control Points have been used routinely by the Army for this purpose for decades, although not since 2002.

"Manning Control Points have not been used since 2002 because the Army has been in a sustained period of undermanning."

Although the 12- and 15-year groups will be targeted, the specific numbers, ranks and trades that will be affected have not yet been identified.

There is ongoing analysis to identify where MCPs will best be focused; however, an initial assessment is that some 300 to 500 soldiers will leave in Financial Year 2011/12 as a result of MCPs.

Over 9,000 soldiers leave the trained strength of the Army annually, therefore proposed MCP numbers would account for only about five per cent of this figure.

All soldiers will be informed of the reintroduction of MCPs through their chain of command regardless of whether they are currently on operations or not.

The Army will identify numbers within Career Employment Groups over the next few months. This will be published so that soldiers are aware of whether they are in an affected trade.

The Army will identify those soldiers with limited prospects in those trades and formally 'board' them against the criteria of length of service, rank, trade and long-term potential in order to make a decision on those individuals who it does not consider have the potential to make a full contribution to today's Army.

Once a decision has been reached, in the majority of cases, a soldier will be given 12 months' notice that they are to leave the Army after this period.

In determining those who are eligible for MCPs, each case will be considered on its own merits and in terms of what is best for the Army.

Where individuals are selected to leave under MCPs, the Army will provide appropriate support for the transition to civilian life.

Focusing on the 12- and 15-year groups means that all those leaving will qualify for a resettlement grant of about £10,000 [30 days' graduated resettlement time, an individual resettlement training costs grant of £534 (non-taxable) and a resettlement grant of £9,573 (non-taxable)].

In addition, regardless of the time served, all would have an accrued pension which they would be able to draw at retirement age.

[buglerbilly]

From The Times March 23, 2010

500 soldiers face losing their jobs to help MoD balance the books

Deborah Haynes and Tom Coghlan


(Peter Nicholls/The Times)
A review after the election will earmark cuts to Forces projects and personnel

As a group of MPs warned that the Ministry of Defence faces a funding black hole of up to £80 billion over the next decade because of poor budgeting, it emerged that up to 500 soldiers would lose their jobs under a plan to modernise the Army.

The MoD may need to cancel a number of multibillion-pound equipment projects to tackle its growing financial deficit, according to the Public Accounts Committee .

Despite the conflict in Afghanistan, the Armed Forces are preparing for swingeing cuts to procurement programmes and personnel under a strategic defence review after the election.

The MoD is committed to a wish list of new kit, from armoured vehicles to fighter jets, but lacks the money to foot the bill — a shortfall that needs to be addressed while at the same time maintaining Britain’s ability to defend itself. As part of efforts to increase efficiency with limited resources, the MoD yesterday announced that it would terminate the contracts of between 300 and 500 troops in positions that are not critical to operations in Afghanistan.

The military has not exercised its right to terminate soldiers’ employment since 2002. Those targeted under the new plan will have completed either 12 or 15 years of service.

Despite concern about overstretch, the Army claimed that it was closer to full strength than for years. The MoD said that the redundancy drive would make it possible to employ more soldiers in roles needed for Afghanistan, such as that of bomb-disposal experts.

Those selected to leave will be given one year’s notice, help with finding a job and a grant of £10,000. The process, known as Manning Control Points, will happen from April 2011.

Also under pressure are the military’s 15 top-spending equipment projects, which are expected to cost more than £60 billion. The Public Accounts Committee said in a report released today that the defence budget was unaffordable. “Matters have worsened to the point where the department will have to take difficult decisions, such as to cancel whole equipment programmes,” Edward Leigh, committee chairman, said.

The National Audit Office has calculated that the budget deficit would rise to £36 billion after ten years if defence funding remained flat, the committee noted. “But based on a more pessimistic assumption of a 4 per cent reduction year-on-year for the next five years ... then the budget deficit could be as high as £80 billion.”

Quentin Davies, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, said the Government was “taking tough decisions to ensure that a strong equipment programme stays within the parameters of a rising MoD budget”.

[buglerbilly]

Ministry of Defence could have to cancel programmes to fill £36billion black hole

Defence chiefs could have to cancel whole equipment programmes to fill a £36billion black hole in its budget, an influential group of MPs has given warning.

By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor

Published: 6:50AM GMT 23 Mar 2010


An artist's impression of the future aircraft Carriers for the Royal Navy, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales

The Public Accounts Committee said the Ministry of Defence’s funding shortfall could rise to more than £36 billion in the coming decade - many times the official estimate of £6 billion

The MPs had been investigating the department’s governance and budgeting arrangements were fit for purpose.They found that the current defence budget was “fundamentally unaffordable”.

Edward Leigh MP, the committee’s chairman, said that the MoD's current estimate of a £6billion shortfall depended on “over-optimistic” year-on-year funding increases of 2.7 per cent.

He said: "According to the NAO, even if cash spending on defence remains flat, then the projected deficit will be of the order of £36 billion. The deficit could be even higher than that.

"Matters have worsened to the point where the department will have to take difficult decisions, such as to cancel whole equipment programmes."

The MPs also uncovered "serious consequences of failings in the department's governance and budgetary processes".

In the report - 'Ministry of Defence: Major Projects Report 2009', the committee said "intentional decisions to delay some projects have increased total procurement costs" and "overall are poor value for money".

The committee said it had identified "tentative signs" that projects were being better managed by the MoD, although the decisions to "slip" projects made it difficult to assess performance.

Quentin Davies, Defence Equipment and Support minister, said of the 2000 projects managed by the MoD over the past two years, 90 per cent have been delivered to cost and 80 per cent on time.

Mr Davies said: “The fundamental challenge is that despite defence spending being 10 per cent higher in real terms than 1997, the Ministry of Defence still faces significant cost pressures due to increases in the cost of major programmes.

"[This is] a challenge faced by all advanced militaries across the world, and one which the Government has already shown it is committed to addressing.”

[buglerbilly]

Ministry of Defence: Major Projects Report 2009 (Summary)

(Source: House of Commons Public Accounts Committee; issued March 23, 2010)

Edward Leigh MP, Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, today said:

"Britain's defence budget is fundamentally unaffordable. The MOD estimates it at £6 billion over the next ten years but that figure depends on the assumption (surely optimistic) that there will be a year-on-year increase in funding of 2.7 per cent. According to the NAO, even if cash spending on defence remains flat, then the projected deficit will be of the order of £36 billion. The deficit could be even higher than that.

"Matters have worsened to the point where the Department will have to take difficult decisions, such as to cancel whole equipment programmes.

"That the MOD has got itself into such a mess is an indictment of its current governance and budgetary arrangements. It has hitherto reacted to cost pressures by arbitrarily taking decisions to delay projects or reduce the amount or capability of the equipment on order. The problem is that such measures are often economies in the short-term only, leading to higher overall costs and poor value for money in the longer term. In future, they must not be implemented without a proper quantified assessment of the impact on military operations and their overall value for money.

"The Treasury has also been remiss, up to now focusing purely on whether the MOD's books were balanced in each year and ignoring the fact that the major projects programme was becoming unaffordable. It must now seek assurance on whether new projects can be afforded within the overall defence budget."

Mr Leigh was speaking as the Committee published its 23rd Report of this Session which examined whether the Department's governance and budgeting arrangements were fit for purpose and whether it understood the serious implications of re-prioritising projects after committing to them.

The Major Projects Report 2009 is the latest in a long running series of reports examining the record of the Ministry of Defence (the Department) in meeting cost, time and performance targets for its top military equipment projects which are expected to cost more than £60 billion.

Our hearing identified the serious consequences of failings in the Department's governance and budgetary processes. Even using the Department's own, over-optimistic estimates the defence budget is unaffordable by some £6 billion. The exact size of the gap is dependent on the assumptions one makes about future funding, but the gap could easily be £36 billion and potentially even more.

Intentional decisions to delay some projects have increased total procurement costs and represent economies of the short term, and overall are poor value for money on the specific projects affected. The decisions were taken by the Department as part of a wider package to try to make the defence programme affordable over the next few years. They account for two thirds of the £1 billion of cost increases on projects in the last year. Crucially, they mean the Armed Forces will not get the operational benefits of new capabilities as quickly as expected and some equipments will only be delivered in reduced numbers.

The decisions to delay projects, change requirements and reduce the numbers of equipments being procured adversely affect the Department's ability to secure value for money from its commercial partners. Yet the Department continues to do so. The Department is in the strongest negotiating position with industry before it places a contract. Slowing projects down once started almost inevitably increases their costs and takes pressure off contractors to become more efficient.

After years of reporting on the poor performance of individual projects, we note that this year there are some tentative signs that projects are better managing the costs over which they have control. In practice, the programming decisions taken to deliberately slip projects make it difficult to assess the performance of individual projects and we will be looking for evidence that the improvements can be sustained in future years.

Click here for the full report (32 pages in PDF format) on the Parliament website.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmpubacc/338/338.pdf

(ends)

Equipment Programmes

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued March 23, 2010)

There has been extensive media coverage of the Public Accounts Committee's Report into major MOD projects, with media suggesting that the MOD could be forced to cancel equipment programmes to make up a shortfall in its budget.

As Minister for Defence Equipment and Support Quentin Davies has said: "The MOD currently manages some 2,000 projects and, over the last two years, 90 per cent have been delivered to cost, and 80 per cent have been delivered to time.

"The Government is taking the tough decisions necessary to ensure that a strong equipment programme stays within the parameters of a rising MOD budget.

"Last December we showed how through cuts to civilian staff numbers, reducing head office overheads, and withdrawing some lower priority capabilities, we have been able to make hundreds of millions of pounds of additional investment in crucial capabilities including C-17 and C-130 aircraft, 22 more Chinook helicopters, and strengthening our UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] and counter-IED capabilities - all vital both in Afghanistan and for the future of Defence.

"And in the Green Paper and the Strategy for Acquisition Reform published last month, we set out our wider plans to improve the way we manage our future equipment programme, and to be more transparent.

"We are making improvements the whole time in our procurement processes, both for UORs [Urgent Operational Requirements] for Afghanistan, and in core defence programmes.

"As an example of the latter, on Monday we announced the completion of the competition for the new Scout armoured vehicle. This was completed in a year, and is a new record for a major core equipment programme.

"The fundamental challenge is that despite defence spending being 10 per cent higher in real terms than 1997, the Ministry of Defence still faces significant cost pressures due to increases in the cost of major programmes - a challenge faced by all advanced militaries across the world, and one which the Government has already shown it is committed to addressing."

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

UK’s Strategic Defence Review – Lessons? Which Lessons?


The failure of ‘smart procurement’ a remorseless increase of costs.

Have the lessons been learned as UK’s second SDR approaches?

08:27 GMT, March 25, 2010 In the aftermath of every administrative scandal in the UK some senior official is always brought forward to express the view that ‘Lessons will be learned’ - but they never are. With Whitehall about to conduct the second Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in twelve years the question must be asked: ’Have the lessons been learned?’

The first SDR was launched by the Labour government after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and when it was published in 1998 the Secretary of State for Defence Mr George Robertson (who later became NATO Secretary General) boasted: “By modernising and reshaping our Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the 21st Century, this review will give our services the firm foundation they need to plan for the long term.”

Like so much of Labour administration’s promises this has proved a hollow pledge because it was based on a series of false assumptions. The fundamental assumption of the 1998 SDR was that British forces would be committed to short-term, multi-national operations and certainly not major ones purely in the national interest. The other fundamental assumption was that ‘smart procurement’ would help contain the growing costs of major defence programmes and ensure they came in on time.

Not only did ‘smart procurement’ fail to deliver programmes on time and on budget, but also the costs rose remorselessly partly because neither the Services nor the Ministry of Defence (MoD) knew how to restrain them. At the same time the UK was committed to two major and prolonged counter-insurgency conflicts which were expensive both in human and material terms, requiring major ad hoc equipment programmes (Urgent Operational Requirements) which diverted funds and in many cases, such as protected vehicles, have created a long-term logistical problem due to the diversity of equipment. Consequently, the MoD now has a £35 billion ‘hole’ between the cost of its programmes and its income. Nor have matters been helped by Labour’s quiet cutting of the defence budget until the second Iraq conflict in 2003. The impact on the Services was highlighted by the House of Commons Defence Committee which noted the Armed Forces have operated ‘above the overall level of concurrent operations which they are resourced and structured to sustain over time.’

The world financial crisis and Prime Minister Gordon Mr Brown’s determination to spend his way out of recession leading to a massive public deficit have been the last factor which has forced the new defence review. With commendable British understatement Defence Secretary Mr Bob Ainsworth noted that ‘tough choices’ needed to be faced and implied that some major defence programmes would have to be cut. Having said this he promptly nailed the government’s colours to the mast of the aircraft carrier (CVF) and associated JSF programmes by indicating their £15 billion future was assured. By removing the carriers and their aircraft from the list of imperilled projects, the government would not only be seen as ensuring work for British industry but confirming the commitment to expeditionary warfare. With a General Election imminent an in-coming government will not be bound by such commitments, and indeed the shadow Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox is reported having stated that he would investigate “break clauses” to terminate the carrier programme from day one in power. But even so, it is extremely unlikely that a Tory government would really wish to cancel the programme, if only because of the impact on jobs.

The problem then becomes of how is the Royal Navy to support such expeditionary operations? The original SDR envisaged a fleet of two carriers, ten SSNs, 32 escorts (destroyers and frigates) and 22 minehunters - but this is now down to eight submarines, 23 escorts (the numbers of DARING-class DDGs having been halved) and 16 minehunters with one to pay off. The RN is on the verge of two major equipment programmes; the Future Surface Combatant (FSC), and the Military Afloat Reach Sustainability (MARS). The first stage of the former envisages ten frigate-type ships costing some £6 billion, while the latter is for up to a dozen replenishment and logistic support ships and will cost about £2 billion. Unless FCS begins on time the RN will suffer a significant decline in surface combatants, while MARS has already slipped due to earlier cuts in the defence budget.

Much has been made of co-operation with European partners, for example in the use of aircraft carriers, and there is no doubt this is one way forward. But would the French be willing to, say, deploy their CHARLES DE GAULLE to support British operations to secure the Falkland Islands? The omens are not good.

As for the Army it is clear that it will still be expected to have a conventional, high-intensity conflict capability to participate in expeditionary operations. But it is also clear that for the next few years it will be committed to a bloody and brutal counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan. Given the diversity in requirements of each role, to which should the Army be committed? A conventional capability will require more sophisticated equipment, and will thus help drive the faltering Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) programme which has been botched by both the Ministry and the Army and been described as a ‘fiasco’ by the House of Commons Defence Committee. Yet FRES offers the only potential major Army sacrificial goat to the Treasury - unless the Army decides (or is forced) to save money by slashing numbers and perhaps scrapping much of the heavy armour force.

The Royal Air Force has just lost its maritime patrol capability with the decision to scrap the NIMROD M2 fleet before the NIMROD MR4 enters service. With JSF possibly secure, the only major programme which theoretically faces the axe is the A400M airlifter. Otherwise they are facing a cut of up to 25% and there are reportedly plans to close five major air bases and to phase out most of the TORNADOs and HARRIERs - although these are essential to provide air support for the Army.

The truth is that the British Armed Forces have suffered the ‘death of a thousand cuts’, partly because Labour has traditionally had little interest in defence. Even with many programmes over budget and schedule there is little ‘fat’ left to cut and cuts are likely to hit ‘muscle.’ A study by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) has concluded that there will be a cut of around 10-15% in the defence budget in real terms, together with continuing real annual unit cost growth of 1-2%. The study suggested the Armed Forces would drop in numbers from 175,000 to 142,000 by 2016, and noted that if cutbacks were evenly spread, regiments would drop from 97 to 79, aircraft 760 to 615 and major vessels from 57 to 46.
The siren song of ‘cut the TRIDENT successor’ is heard in many places and, in theory, such a decision would save some £20 billion. The problem is that it would not only imply abandoning the British independent nuclear deterrent posture, but will also mean the demise of the British nuclear submarine industry. A potential compromise might be achieved by a joint programme with the United States which is already looking at an OHIO-class successor as SSBN (X).

Beyond British shores, the new SDR is of fundamental interest to Washington because the British have been the most reliable ally when armed forces were required. If the UK Armed Forces suffer a significant reduction in capability, then the US will have to bridge the gap. The problem is that if SDR takes the same relatively short-term view taken by the 1998 document, then not only will British pretensions to being even a regional power be ended, but also the ability to aid Washington.

----
By Ted Hooton

Military Technology (MILTECH)

Company or Organisation Portrait:
This commentary will be published in the next issue of MILITARY TECHNOLOGY (MILTECH). MILTECH was founded in 1977. It is the world's leading international tri-service defence monthly magazine in the English language.

For more information, please visit:
http://moench-group.com/military-technology.php

[buglerbilly]

Jet Trainers, Helos, Missiles Top Latest Round of U.K. Contracts

By andrew chuter

Published: 29 Mar 2010 15:22

LONDON - Britain's Ministry of Defence has announced a number of weapon contracts including a maintenance deal with BAE Systems to support new Hawk jet trainers, long-lead items for a Chinook helicopter purchase from Boeing and an agreement with MBDA to deliver several complex weapon programs.

The support deal for the new Hawk T Mk2 trainer jets is worth 120 million pounds to BAE and subcontractor Babcock Defence. An availability and maintenance deal with Rolls-Royce to support the RB199 engines used on the Tornado strike aircraft was meant to have been included in the announcement but Treasury officials did not sign off the agreement earlier today in time for it to be included in a statement to Parliament by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth.

Today's announcements were the latest, and probably last, in a flurry of contracts unveiled by the MoD in the last week ahead of the government calling a general election. Last week's deals included a decision to buy three Boeing 707-based Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft from the U.S. government to replace the current Nimrod R1 fleet, the purchase of a new generation of armored vehicles from General Dynamics UK, and a deal with BAE for the assessment phase of a program to build a fleet of frigates.

Today, the Ministry of Defence announced a further raft of deals predominantly to meet Royal Air Force requirements.

Top of the list is a 330 million pound ($492 million) contract with missile maker MBDA to demonstrate and deliver a loitering munition known as Fire Shadow for the British Army. The man-in-the-loop weapon, which is capable of loitering for hours before being called in to strike moving vehicles and other targets, could be ready for fielding in Afghanistan by early 2012.

The second weapon is an advanced variant of the Brimstone dual mode air-to-surface missile operated by the RAF on its fleet of Tornado and Harrier GR9 strike aircraft. Known as the Selective Precision Effects At Range (Spear) Capability 2, Block 1, the weapon is expected to be available in a similar timeframe to the loitering munition.

Further assessment phase work on two other weapons is also part of the 330 million pound long-term partnering agreement with MBDA.

The 24-month assessment phase covers a long-range mini-cruise type weapon, called SPEAR Capability 3, to equip British Joint Strike Fighters and the Future Local Area Air Defence System (FLAADS) to replace Sea Wolf on the Royal Navy's next generation of Future Surface Combatant frigates. Variants of the weapon could also find land and air-to-air applications.

MBDA and the MoD have signed what they describe as an interim Portfolio Management Agreement to push through a range of projects potentially worth up to 4 billion pounds over the next 10 years.

Other programs that may be involved include an update of the Storm Shadow cruise missile and a possible new Anglo-French anti-surface guided weapon for the two nation's naval helicopter forces. The latter deal is currently in the assessment phase.

The support deal for the new Hawk T Mk2 trainer jets, worth 120 million pounds to BAE and subcontractor Babcock Defence, will run out to March 2014.

A deal to begin purchasing long-lead items for the first 10 of 22 Chinook helicopters the British plan to buy to boost their fleet of twin-rotor machines has also been signed. Ainsworth said the contract for initial design and long-lead work will protect the critical path to delivery of the 10 aircraft in 2012 and 2013.

Boeing said in a statement the contract covers long-lead items such as "transmissions and fuselages, along with non-recurring engineering costs for UK aircraft specific design."

On the much delayed and over budget Airbus Military A400M airlifter, Ainsworth said the in-service date for the RAF had been set at 2015. Defence Procurement Minister Quentin Davies last week said he expected the first A400M to arrive in 2014 and it was even possible Britain could get a "Christmas present" with the delivery of an aircraft late the previous year.

Britain originally ordered 25 aircraft. That number is expected to shrink to a minimum of 22 after the MoD reduced the number of aircraft to be delivered to pay its portion of increased development costs.

Despite the fact Britain's C-130K fleet will go out of service in 2012, Ainsworth said that the recent procurement of a seventh C-17 and an upgraded C-130J fleet of 24 aircraft would be able to meet airlift requirements for current operations.

Analysts here reckoned that view was very optimistic given the volume of airlift required to support British efforts in Afghanistan and the fragile nature of some of the RAF's aging airlifters, such as the Tristar.

Britain would likely have to lease additional capability on its own or join forces with other A400m partners like France to come up with a short-term fix, said the analysts.

[buglerbilly]

U.K. Defense Review Must Not Delay ISR Work

Mar 30, 2010

By Douglas Barrie and Robert Wall

London will spend at least $2 billion on two big-ticket intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) projects, to enter service in 2014 and 2015, but the pending defense review could undercut efforts in this important area.

The Defense Ministry finally reached a deal to acquire three Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft—at a cost of around $1 billion—to replace its two remaining Nimrod R1 electronic intelligence-gathering aircraft, with a letter of offer and acceptance signed March 19. The ministry also plans to buy at least 18 medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) UAVs to meet its operational unmanned aerial system (OUAS) requirement.

The RC-135 is slated to enter service in 2014, with the OUAS due to follow in December 2015. A full operational capability with the latter system—meeting the deep and persistent requirement of the ministry’s Dabinett ISR architecture and collection project—would follow at the end of 2021. The procurement cost of the OUAS is estimated to be roughly £640 million ($954 million).

However, London’s present ISR agenda could be slowed because of the pending defense review, which is due to gain momentum immediately after the British general election, to be held as early as May. Parliament’s Defense Committee warns that any delay would be an error.

“There is the possibility that plans for the development of Istar [intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance] capability might be put to one side or slowed during the process of the Strategic Defense Review, not just on account of financial constraints but because of the cross-service nature of the capability,” the committee states in its latest report. “This should not be allowed to happen.”

The report, entitled “The Contribution of Istar to Current Operations” and released March 25, also warns that “failure to proceed at least according to existing plans to improve Istar capability and to fund those improvements sufficiently that they accord with the existing timetable would be *misguided.”

The R1s are being withdrawn from service in 12 months, although the Royal Air Force will not operate the RC-135s until three years later. In the interim, it is believed U.K. personnel will serve on U.S. Rivet Joint aircraft. However, the Defense Ministry declines to detail its agreement with the U.S. with regard to covering the capability gap.

Airframe fatigue issues, rather than any safety concerns, may be the cause of the early withdrawal of the R1, which had originally been slated to remain in service to 2025. The loss of a Nimrod MR2 (and the death of all on board) in Afghanistan in 2006, following what was most likely a fuel leak resulting in a fire, raised concerns about the fleet.

The ministry had looked at two BAE Systems alternatives to the RC-135 as part of Project Helix—either updating the existing R1s or using the Nimrod MRA4s. Cuts in the number of MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft being bought by the Defense Ministry meant three development versions were available to be modified as the basis of a replacement for the R1.

BAE Systems had explored the possibility of integrating the Tigershark 2 communications intelligence suite on the MRA4 as part of an assessment of whether the company could meet the U.K. requirement for an R1 sigint/commint replacement. That was deemed possible, but London’s decision to pursue the RC-135 for that requirement means the sensor will be installed on the modified KC-135s. The Defense Ministry is unwilling to discuss the mission systems for the U.K. RC‑135s. It is aiming to sign the contract—a foreign military sales deal—for the three Rivet Joints by midyear. L-3 Communications is expected carry out the modification work, based on the KC-135 airframe.

Discussing Dabinett, the Defense Committee asserts that this is “a vital program for the future of U.K. Istar capability. . . . We expect the Strategic Defense Review properly to acknowledge that Dabinett is central to winning the intelligence war.”

In the near term, the Dabinett focus is on making better use of the available data. Lockheed Martin and BAE were recently awarded contracts for the competitive assessment stage of the Istar Information Integration & Management project, effectively the first phase of Dabinett. The demonstration and manufacturing element is anticipated to be awarded in early 2011.

Likely platform contenders for the OUAS armed MALE UAV include BAE Systems’ Mantis technology demonstrator, EADS’s Talarion and General Atomics’ Predator C Avenger.

[JimWH]

I suppose the bright news is that the three development MRA4 airframes will be available for refit to operational standard when finance improve...

[buglerbilly]

NAO's Report into the MOD’s Multi-Role Tanker Aircraft

Various newspapers today report on the NAO's report into the MOD’s programme for a Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) which is intended to replace the fleet of Tristars that currently provide air to air refuelling capabilities.

Media outlets state that the report says that MOD failures caused a five and a half year delay to the programme leading to a lack of value for money.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office said: "Shortcomings in the early stages of the project put the MOD in a position where the operational pressures of an aging fleet and the need to maintain the vital air bridge restricted its ability to deliver a solution which achieved value for money.

"Despite taking five years longer than planned to sign a contract, the MOD's progress in delivering the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft project has improved since contract signature, and the project is meeting its delivery milestones. But there is more work for the MOD and its suppliers to do to get the best out of the deal."

The MOD is pleased the NAO has acknowledged that this FSTA project has achieved all of its delivery milestones since the contract was signed. We recognise that some aspects of the procurement in the early stages might have been improved but we are content that the UK has secured a good deal for the taxpayer and for the RAF.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: MoD only mentions one of the NAO report’s conclusions, and ignores the most damning one, in which the Auditor-General said he “has been unable to conclude that the Ministry of Defence has achieved value for money from the procurement phase of its £10.5 billion private finance deal for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA).

Click here for the NAO’s report (42 pages in PDF format).

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0910/tanker_aircraft.aspx

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Briefing: What next for UK Defence Equipment & Support?

By Matthew Bell

31 March 2010

The body responsible for buying the UK's defence equipment, Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S), is central to any meaningful reform of a procurement system that has, in recent months, been strongly criticised as extraordinarily wasteful.

Government and industry alike have enthusiastically pointed to perceived problems and possible solutions, all couched within the inevitable uncertainty of the impending UK general election that must take place by June 2010, and the accompanying knowledge that real improvement can only come about if there is clarity of leadership and sufficient political will to drive reform.

The UK House of Commons public accounts committee was the latest oversight body to confirm the extent of the Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) defence procurement failures, estimating on 23 March 2010 that the funding gap between equipment ordered and the ability to pay for it could be as much as GBP36 billion (USD53.9 billion), or even more. "Matters have worsened to the point where the department will have to take difficult decisions, such as to cancel whole equipment programmes," said the committee's Conservative chairman, Edward Leigh.

In October 2009, the MoD acknowledged the extent of the procurement problems it faced when it published an independent report by Bernard Gray, a businessman and former civil servant. Gray concluded that over-ambitious programme commitments, combined with an endemic tendency to delay procurements rather than cancel them when costs spiralled, had resulted in average delivery delays of around five years and extra costs of between GBP900 million and GBP2.2 billion each year.

249 of 1343 words
Copyright © IHS (Global) Limited, 2010

[buglerbilly]

U.K. MoD Rejects Obstruction Claims

Apr 7, 2010

By Douglas Barrie barrie@aviationweek.com
LONDON

The British Defense Ministry is rejecting parliamentary allegations that it was “unhelpful” and “obstructive” in discussing a multi-billion pound hole in its procurement budget.

The British Parliament’s Defense Committee made clear its “disappointment” over how the Defense Ministry addressed this issue during its hearings in its Defense Equipment 2010 report.

The ministry, however, contends it was not “confused, unhelpful or obstructive.” Rather, it argues that since a review of procurement was underway — the so-called Equipment Examination — “it would have been inappropriate to speculate on its progress or outcome.”

In its formal response to the committee report released April 6, the ministry notes: “While we did not at the time provide details of the financial implications, this was consistent with our policy not to comment on internal planning assumptions unless it was appropriate to do so.”

Depending on the assumptions made, the Defense Ministry presently faces a 6-36 billion pound ($9.1 billion - $54.7 billion) funding gap between its 10-year procurement plan and its likely available funding.

The ministry argues: “Defense spending from 2011/12 onwards has yet to be settled, and any estimate of the shortfall between budget and the estimated cost of the program is therefore somewhat speculative.” It does not contest, however, that if faces a significant funding issue, which it says will be addressed in the pending Strategic Defense Review.

The Defense Committee was clearly irritated by what it viewed as “disingenuous” denials by some ministry officials during its hearings about any funding problems, while at the same time internally the ministry “was in the process of taking steps to manage a funding gap of 21 billion pounds.”

[buglerbilly]

Parties Get Their Priorities Wrong... Again

(Source: UK National Defence Association; issued April 14, 2010)

Only 9 pages out of 308 are devoted to defence and national security in the Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrat manifestos

The three main political parties have all failed to give sufficient attention to the defence of the realm – supposedly “the first priority of government” – in their General Election manifestos, according to the UK National Defence Association (UKNDA).

In a total of 308 pages of General Election promises by the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, barely nine pages are devoted to the state of Britain's Armed Forces. The Conservatives cover defence in four pages of their 118-page manifesto, the Liberal Democrats give the subject the equivalent of three pages out of 112, and in Labour's 78-page manifesto defence warrants only two pages.

“This is an appalling reflection on our politicians and their muddled sense of priorities,” says UKNDA spokesman Andy Smith. “Many of these same politicians still claim that 'defence is the first priority of government' – but the reality is exposed by the scant attention given to the subject in their parties' manifestos.”

The UKNDA believes that the policies set out in the three manifestos are inherently dishonest. “Both Labour and the Tories see Britain continuing to have a strong global role and a proactive foreign policy,” says Andy Smith, “yet neither party indicates how the resources will be made available for our Armed Forces to do this. The fact is that defence has been chronically under-funded since the 1990s, both by Tory and Labour governments, leaving our Forces severely over-stretched and under-equipped. Britain now spends barely 2.2% of GDP on defence, which is woefully inadequate.

“The Liberal Democrats pledge to restore the 'Military Covenant' and improve the welfare of Service personnel and their families, but also call for 'savings' in the defence budget – despite the fact that military funding has already fallen in real terms over the past decade while other areas of Government spending have grown. Rather than accepting the urgent need to increase defence funding, the LibDems see Britain's future defence needs being met through increased European cooperation, which in our view is wholly unrealistic.

“If the Labour, Tory and LibDem parties were honest they would spell out the risks to Britain from a continued failure to invest adequately in defence. Instead, each one of these parties has dodged the fundamental question of defence funding. Only by increasing the budget for our Armed Forces can we repair Britain's fractured military capability and ensure the future security of our country, our worldwide interests, our borders, our trade routes and energy supplies.”

The United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA) was formed in 2007 to campaign in support of Britain's Armed Forces. The Patrons of the UKNDA include three former Chiefs of the Defence Staff – Admiral The Lord Boyce, Marshal of the RAF The Lord Craig, and General The Lord Guthrie. Tri-Service and politically independent, the UKNDA aims to ensure that Britain's fighting men and women are properly trained, equipped, sustained and cared for.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

TV Election Debate Key Question: Is UK Sleepwalking to Second Division Status?

(Source: ASD; issued April 21, 2010)

A|D|S, the UK's AeroSpace, Defence and Security trade organisation today (Wednesday) called on the second of three "Prime Ministerial Debates", which will focus on foreign policy, to examine whether the three main political parties will act to halt the sustained decline in defence spending to prevent the UK losing its leading place in the world.

According to Treasury figures spending on defence has halved as a percentage of national wealth over the past twenty years. The parties are all agreed on the need for a defence review after the election but the guiding principles that they will apply to this review remain unclear. The parties also have differing opinions on issues such as Afghanistan and Trident.

These decisions, once taken, will impact on Britain's place in the wider world as well as its ability to protect itself at home and its interests overseas. A|D|S therefore has prepared a series of questions that could assist the debate moderator Adam Boulton to clarify the situation for voters ahead of the election.

The debate will take place on Thursday 22 June at 2000 on Sky News. A|D|S has also produced a defence manifesto that can be found at http://is.gd/bzo3Z.

Ian Godden, Chairman of A|D|S, said:

"It is vital that the party leaders are clear and open with the British public on the specific and crucial issue of defence. It underpins foreign policy objectives as well as our trading strength. The rest of the debate could be academic in nature without considering defence. With UK defence spending at a historic low in terms of its share of national wealth, with all three major parties planning a defence review after the election and with the economy in bad shape there are many questions for them to answer before the British people cast their ballots.

"For example, the electorate needs to know what principles they will apply to their defence review. Will they pledge to avoid any further cuts in defence spending given the UK's permanent place on the UN Security Council and the threats posed by an uncertain world? Do they believe that future cuts in public expenditure should come from other departments given the fact that defence has already made its contribution to savings over two decades? Will they give the green light to Trident in order for the country to be able to maintain its nuclear deterrent? Which areas of Government spending will be put under similar pressure to that experienced by defence to deliver savings?

"As well as delivering the best possible equipment for our armed forces the UK defence industry is a boost to the UK economy having a 21 per cent market share of the world's defence export market, being number one in Europe and second only to the US globally. It employs 300,000 people across the country and is worth around £35 billion per year, with an additional £5 billion per year on average coming from exports.

“Therefore, our troops on the frontline, the security of our country and the state of our economy depend on the party leaders taking important decisions on defence. The debate must flush out the answers on our nation's defence from Mr Brown, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg so that the UK electorate can make an informed choice on 6 May."

A|D|S suggests that debate host Adam Boulton may wish to ask the following questions:

To all:
* Is it enough to promise a defence review after the election? Instead could you briefly set out your guiding principles ahead of the review and the election?

* In your view, what is the greatest threat facing the UK today?

* The Armed Forces meet national commitments for intervention, peacekeeping and peacemaking in support of our foreign policy and the country's desire to play a major part in world affairs. Within the current economic environment, where do you stand with regard to Britain's role on the world stage?

* The 1998 Strategic Defence Review took 18 months to complete, stakeholders including industry were consulted and the final product was praised as a comprehensive, if unfunded strategy. How long or short a period would you require to complete the next review and do you think it can be completed in around 6 months?

* What balance do you see between current asymmetric threats and more traditional threats such as state on state warfare when it comes to future priorities?

* How will you assure that the defence review maintains a strategic focus in order to ensure Britain has the mid 21st century capability to defend its future economic needs and global interests?

To Gordon Brown:
* With our troops at war overseas can you commit to giving defence a greater priority over funding demands from other departments that have not seen similar budget pressures in recent years?

* If you were PM following the election would you conduct Government to Government discussions on behalf of UK-based defence firms as Presidents Obama & Sarkozy do for theirs?

To David Cameron:
* If the review concludes that defence requires an increase in funding will you commit to providing it?

* The UK's longstanding "special relationship" with the USA and our close working relationship with key NATO Allies in Afghanistan sometimes come into conflict with European Union priorities and its approach to world affairs. Where do your foreign policy priorities lie when it come to a choice of whom to support?

To Nick Clegg:
* Given the opposition from some in your party to the UK defence industry while certain strong LibDem areas have large defence sector interests, what is the position of your party on support for the UK's valuable defence industry?

* How will the UK and the world be a safer place without a commitment to the ultimate, nuclear, deterrent?


A|D|S is the trade organisation advancing UK AeroSpace, Defence and Security industries with Farnborough International Limited as a wholly-owned subsidiary. A|D|S also encompasses the British Aviation Group (BAG). It is formed from the merger of the Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers (APPSS), the Defence Manufacturers Association (DMA) and the Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC).

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

From The Times April 22, 2010

Army wives face a demoralising battle on the home front

Deborah Haynes


An army wife who has been burdened with bad double-glazing and other woes

The shocking conditions endured by certain Forces families in houses across Britain — including the discovery of afterbirth stains on the carpet, flooding and broken doors — is undermining the morale of soldiers on the front line, The Times has been told.

Military wives have revealed a litany of housing problems due to decades of underfunding. They say that the constant worry about repairs compounds the stress of separation when their husbands are serving in Afghanistan.

General Sir Mike Jackson, a former head of the Army, told The Times that accommodation was “the Cinderella of defence spending”. He said: “It reflects badly on the way that defence is financed that we still are unable to ensure that every serviceman and woman and their families are decently housed.”

A dilapidated estate for middle-ranking officers in London offers an example of homes that have yet to benefit from a multibillion-pound upgrade programme being implemented by the Ministry of Defence. Up to 20 per cent of the semi-detached houses are uninhabitable because of subsidence.

“I find it demoralising when I have to say to friends who come to visit, ‘Just look out for a rundown estate and you will know that you have got to us’,” one officer’s wife said.

She was horrified to find stains on the living room carpet when her family moved into their house 2½ years ago. It had been left by an occupant who had had a home birth.

“You just go from one foul stain to the next,” she said. “It took six months to replace the carpet, and during that time my husband, who is used to living in a ditch, refused to use the living room.”

The stains were just the start of her troubles.

“When you have holes in your garden and your child falls down one of those holes, hurts her ankle and you have to take her to hospital, that makes me angry,” the wife, who has two children, said. “The oven doesn’t work, the boiler broke down, the garage [next door] then collapsed.”

The wife, who has been in military housing that families rent at a subsidised rate for 11 years, said: “I’ve never lived in accommodation as bad as this.”

Like many other military wives, she also experienced frustration with a private company contracted to provide maintenance and repairs, with workers missing appointments or arriving with the wrong tools.

Such problems go against an unspoken pact between society and the Armed Forces, whereby a soldier commits to serving his or her country — risking death — in return for proper welfare and support.

“I cannot tell you what it’s like to have your husband in Afghanistan,” the officer’s wife said. “You are on a knife-edge for six months. However, when you feel you are not being properly looked after, then you begin to feel like a fool.”

The MoD under Labour has spent hundreds of millions of pounds improving accommodation, with many families now living in much-better conditions. It pledged last year to spend £3 billion more over the next decade on further upgrades.

However, all projects will come under scrutiny as part of a big defence review after the election, a prospect that has worried military families.

Julie McCarthy, chief executive of the Army Families Federation, fears that housing is an easy area to cut. “We need more money for housing, not less,” she said.

Mrs McCarthy is preparing to canvass the views of other wives to find out their needs, ensuring that they have a voice in the struggle for limited funds.

“It is not just about guns and helicopters. Soldiers should know when they are away that they can absolutely trust that not only are their families being looked after, but they are living in safe, clean, warm, well-maintained houses.”

The UK National Defence Association, a group that campaigns for the Armed Forces, urged the next government to increase funding.

“The overstretch and under-resourcing of our Forces has placed — and continues to place — a considerable strain on the personnel of all three Services, and particularly on their families at home,” members of the association say in a letter to The Times, published today.

[buglerbilly]

Dr Liam Fox appointed UK Secretary of State for Defence


Dr Liam Fox visiting British and Iraqi troops in Basra, Iraq, in September 2008.

11:34 GMT, May 12, 2010

One can but wonder what time will bring for the UK Forces with this new Alliance government?

Dr Liam Fox has been appointed as the new Secretary of State for Defence today, Wednesday 12 May 2010.

Dr Fox has been the MP for Woodspring (renamed North Somerset for the 2010 May General Election) since 1992 and was appointed as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence in December 2005. He has visited the UK's Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dr Fox was born and raised in East Kilbride, Scotland, and attended the local comprehensive school, St Bride's High School, before going on to study medicine at the University of Glasgow.

He worked as a GP before becoming a Member of Parliament and, as well as his career in the NHS, Dr Fox has also worked as a Civilian Army Medical Officer.

[buglerbilly]

New Secretary of State sends message to Defence staff

A Defence Policy and Business news article

12 May 10

The new Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, has issued the following message to all Defence Staff.


Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox addresses members of the Armed Forces and Civil Service Staff at the Ministry of Defence
[Picture: POA(Phot) Amanda Reynolds, Crown Copyright/MOD 2010]

The first duty of Government is to protect our way of life and provide security for our citizens. That is why I am proud and honoured to have been appointed as Defence Secretary by the Prime Minister David Cameron. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Bob Ainsworth, who always had the best interests of the Armed Forces at heart.

Britain's Armed Forces are rightly respected both at home and abroad, and widely regarded as among the very best in the world. During my five years as Shadow Defence Secretary I have been privileged to see them at work in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

As a nation we have a responsibility to ensure they have our full support in return for the selfless service and sacrifice they are prepared to make in our name. The new Government will honour that duty with a new Tri-Service Covenant that will set out our obligations and commitments to the men and women of our Armed Forces, their families and veterans.

The campaign in Afghanistan is a national security imperative. We are there out of necessity not out of choice. I am determined that alongside our ISAF partners we will succeed. We will ensure that our Forces have the equipment and support they need to do what we ask of them.

Defence faces major challenges over the next few years. In today's uncertain world, it is essential that we maintain a highly dedicated and professional body of Servicemen and women with the capability to defend our national interests whenever they are called on to do so, and a strong cadre of professional defence civilians to undertake the distinctive tasks for which they are responsible.

A review of defence is long overdue but the needs of our Armed Forces can no longer be considered in isolation from other security challenges we face. We will be taking forward a Strategic Defence and Security Review, working with other Government department's including the new Foreign, Development and Home Secretaries as part of the new National Security Council.

Our aim must be to ensure that Britain's defence is based on a clear definition of our strategic interests, an assessment of our role in NATO and other partnerships, the threats we face, the military capabilities we need to protect our interests and the programmes we need to deliver those capabilities.

Resources will be tight for the country as a whole and Defence is no exception. We must make sure that we make every penny spent on Defence count. This means we will have to look again at all that we currently do, including the organisation and structure of the Department, each of the Services and the support area to ensure that we can undertake confidently and effectively the key tasks for which MOD is responsible.

We need to confront these issues head on and ensure that we emerge from the review with a clear way ahead for Defence that meets the needs of the current counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan but also ensures that we are well prepared for whatever the future may bring. I will set the work in hand straight away, to deliver before the end of the year.

I look forward to working with you all to tackle the challenges we face. With your support, I know we will do so successfully.

[buglerbilly]

U.K. Braces for Review

New Gov't to Issue Emergency Budget in July

By ANDREW CHUTER

Published: 17 May 2010

London - After an electrifying general election, defense companies and others are anxiously wondering what lies ahead.

The new Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government is racing to complete a strategic defense review by year's end. Ministry of Defence officials have promised incoming Defence Secretary Liam Fox that they can complete the document by the second week of November.

With the MoD already staring at a black hole of at least 6 billion pounds ($8.7 billion) in its finances, plus the likelihood of funding cuts to help bail out the public finances, most people here believe the review could change the game for the British.

As Micheal Codner sees it, the review will show whether Britain is prepared to spend enough on its military to retain its influence in the world. The government will make a strategic choice between a military built to conduct largely continental operations, as in Afghanistan, or a maritime-focused one with aircraft carriers and fewer but more specialized and agile land units, the Royal United Services Institute military sciences director said in a May 13 report.

Britain, which currently spends 36 billion pounds a year on defense - about 2.3 percent of GDP - is already seeing its international influence wane, Codner said.

20 Percent Cuts Possible

It's still unclear whether the defense budget will be reduced. But the Conservatives have already hinted at shrinking MoD costs substantially, and some MoD insiders say cuts are under discussion that could top 10 percent or even 20 percent.

If the ax falls, it is expected to thin the ranks of troops and civilian personnel. One ministry source said more than 20,000 posts could go.

Weapon programs may also fall victim. Procurement teams across the MoD's Defence Equipment & Support arm were recently ordered to prepare details of the costs and contractual implications of canceling programs.

One oft-mentioned possibility is buying fewer F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to arm two aircraft carriers now under construction. Some military and industry officials reckon one of the carriers might be stripped of its jets and put into service as a helicopter carrier.

Other possibilities are fewer Astute nuclear submarines or Future Rapid Effects System armored vehicles.

A further reduction in the Royal Air Force fast jet fleet is also in the cards. The 2010 Planning Round cut one Harrier squadron and said one or two more squadrons of either Harrier or Tornado could go as a result of the defense review. It's possible the whole Harrier fleet could be cut; that option has been considered at the last two planning rounds.

This year's defense spending is generally expected to be safe, despite the new government's pledge to issue an emergency budget in early July that will start reducing public spending. Still, industry executives say the summer spending plan could include small symbolic program cuts.

Several executives said they wanted clarity, visibility and certainty on long-term government spending plans if industry was to continue to invest here. They also want radical reform of the Defence Equipment & Support organization. The Labour administration launched an acquisition reform program earlier this year but the feeling is that coalition partners could tear it up and start again.

The fears of executives and analysts were not soothed by the policy deal hammered out by the Tories and the Liberals to launch Britain's first coalition government in 65 years.

In a statement, coalition officials said a full strategic security and defense review will be undertaken with the "strong involvement of the Treasury." The line was lifted directly from the Liberal manifesto, but probably had the full backing of Conservative Chancellor George Osborne, who does not see eye-to-eye with Fox on defense.

The statement set alarm bells ringing in industry. Late last week, BAE Systems Chief Executive Ian King worried that the review might be shaped more by financial considerations than by the policy debate that Conservatives had earlier promised.

"My worry is the outcome from the review will be driven rather than informed by budgetary considerations. Affordability is a matter for political judgment, not just budget management," King said at a British-American Business Council conference here May 13.

Alex Ashbourne-Walmsley of Ashbourne Strategic Consulting said that while the Treasury was always going to have a strong vote on spending, its inclusion in the Tory-Liberal agreement was a warning shot across the defense sector's bows.

"They spelt it out in a quite brutal fashion. Nobody should be in any doubt now who holds the purse strings for the defense review," she said.

Some industry leaders were unrattled by the prospect. One executive here said that given the timescale the government had in mind for the review, it was sensible to have the Treasury fully engaged from the outset to provide clarity on funding.

But King said the six-month deadline to develop departmental budgets for the three years starting in 2011-12 may not allow enough time to debate spending and what hard- and soft-power capabilities are needed to execute foreign and defense policy.

And some industry executives are wondering whether the review will truly be comprehensive or end up as a lightweight version that delays decisions on defense-industrial strategy and other issues.

The MoD has for months been reviewing at least five major capability sectors, such as helicopters and armored vehicles, and some here reckon that work could be tailored for the defense review.

Even if the industrial strategy is included from the outset, industry executives said the subject would have to soon be revisited to take into account the defense review's impact.

Several senior jobs are expected to change hands.

Industry and MoD officials reckon the department's top civil servant, Permanent Undersecretary Bill Jeffrey, will soon go. He may be followed by the chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, although Stirrup will likely stay to see the review through.

"Jeffrey's to go, absolutely. Fox needs a new permanent undersecretary, a new chief of the defense material and, ideally, a new chief of the Defence Staff by the end of the defense review," an industry boss said.

[buglerbilly]

The UK Coalition Government has just issued its programme key points. What follows are the releveant sections for Defence and Security................firstly DEFENCE............

The Coalition:
our programme for Defence

The Government believes that we need to take action to safeguard our national security at home and abroad. We also recognise that we need to do much more to ensure that our Armed Forces have the support they need, and that veterans and their families are treated with the dignity that they deserve.

We will maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives. We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament.

We will aim to reduce Ministry of Defence running costs by at least 25%.

We will work to rebuild the Military Covenant by: – ensuring that Service personnel’s rest and recuperation leave can be maximised; – changing the rules so that Service personnel only have to register once on the Service register; – exploring the potential for including Service children as part of our proposals for a pupil premium; – providing university and further education scholarships for the children of Servicemen and women who have been killed on active duty since 1990; – providing support for ex-Service personnel to study at university, – creating a new programme, ‘Troops for Teachers’, to recruit ex-Service personnel into the teaching profession; – providing extra support for veteran mental health needs; and – reviewing the rules governing the awarding of medals.

We will double the operational allowance for Armed Forces personnel serving in Afghanistan, and include Armed Forces pay in our plans for a fair pay review.

We will ensure that injured personnel are treated in dedicated military wards.

We will look at whether there is scope to refurbish Armed Forces’ accommodation from efficiencies within the Ministry of Defence.

We will support defence jobs through exports that are used for legitimate purposes, not internal repression, and will work for a full international ban on cluster munitions.

[buglerbilly]

From the Guardian............

National security, crime and justice

• Urgently review control orders and find a way to allow intercept evidence in court.

• Proscribe groups that have "recently espoused or incited violence or hatred".

• Seek more "no torture" guarantees overseas so that foreign terror suspects can be deported.

• Directly elected "individuals" to oversee police.

• Greater legal protections for people to apprehend criminals and defend themselves.

• Overhaul drinking laws, ban below-cost alcohol sales and "early warning" bans on new legal highs.

• "Rehabilitation revolution" that will pay independent providers to reduce reoffending.

• Full review of sentencing policy and explore alternatives to prison for mentally ill and drug offenders.

• Extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases.

This clears the way for the consideration of wider bans on extreme Islamist groups but with the careful caveat that they must be "subject to the advice of the police and security and intelligence agencies". It may lead to more instances of public funds being denied than outright bans such as that on Hizb-ut-Tahrir demanded in the past by Tory spokesmen. The control order clause appears to recognise that despite a Liberal Democrat plan to scrap control orders there is not yet any effective alternative. The strategy of seeking more "no torture" agreements for deporting terror suspects has already been tried by Labour almost to the point of exhaustion but this enables the coalition to sidestep the immediate debate over the Human Rights Act.

The policing package omits the key Lib Dem election promise of employing 3,000 more police officers and pushes ahead with the Conservative proposals for directly-elected police commissioners – although Theresa May prefers to refer to them only as "individuals". The changes in the drinking laws and alcohol prices are likely to provoke a strong reaction from the drinks companies.

On prisons and sentencing, the coalition negotiators have ordered a full "what works" review of sentencing to square the circle between David Cameron's campaign promise of longer sentences and the Lib Dem commitment to reduce the use of six-month sentences. The use of alternative, secure, treatment-based accommodation for the mentally ill and drug offenders could substantially cut the record prison population but will prove controversial.

[buglerbilly]

Defence, security and foreign affairs

• Pledge to "maintain" Britain's nuclear deterrent, but the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised "to ensure value for money", with Lib Dems to "continue to make the case for alternatives".

• Reduce Ministry of Defence running costs by 25%.

• Measures to improve duty of care and military covenant, including doubling allowance for troops serving in Afghanistan.

• Boost defence exports for "legitimate purposes, not internal repression".

• Set up a strategic defence and security review, overseen by the National Security Council "with strong Treasury involvement".

• Establish "a new 'special relationship' with India" and "seek closer engagement with China".

• Maintain "a strong, close and frank relationship with the United States".

• The UK will play a "positive" role in the EU, but amend the 1972 European Communities Act, "examine" the case for a UK "sovereignty bill", and approach legislation in the area of criminal justice "on a case-by-case basis".

Though there is little startlingly new in the programme relating to defence, security, and foreign policy, the language and emphasis is significant. All parties agreed before the election on the need to keep nuclear weapons, set up a defence review, and improve the welfare of British troops and their families.

However, there is also plenty of scope for serious disputes over the coming months, notably over when and how to replace the existing Trident nuclear missile fleet and what weapons systems to cut in the defence and security review due to be completed by the end of the year. The emphasis on Treasury involvement and value for money could provoke tensions within the Conservative party – between those who want Britain to procure every available modern weapons system, and those who are more concerned about the cost.

There are signs of balancing acts – for example between hawks who would like to export as much arms as possible, and those, particularly the Lib Dems, concerned about them getting into the wrong hands. The language on the EU is robust – when it comes to what is called the "transfer of sovereignty" but pragmatic and flexible on areas the Conservatives have expressed strong opposition to ie cooperation in the fields of criminal justice and the workplace.

With a significant choice of words, the document refers to a "special relationship" with India, contrasting with "closer engagement" with China. It promises a "frank" relationship with the US, a term reflecting perhaps Nick Clegg's known scepticism about too close a relationship with Washington after the experience of George Bush and Tony Blair's period in power.

Richard Norton-Taylor

[buglerbilly]

New Report: Britain Needs Full International Security Review

(Source: Oxford Research Group; issued May 21, 2010)

Perhaps I mis-read something but I thought the 5 page paper said cancel Trident replacement, the Carriers and the F-35's and replace with Sea Control Ships (ferkin Mini-carriers again!).............and UCAV's plus "available" F-35 replacements?!!! WTF would that be?

LONDON --- A new report from leading independent think tank, Oxford Research Group (ORG), calls for the cancellation of the aircraft carrier project, the scaling-down of the Trident programme, and the establishment of an independent Defence Procurement Authority. Unless such decisions are taken, the new defence review will be unable to address the real global security challenges facing Britain.

The briefing, Reviewing Britain’s Security, follows the announcement from new Defence Secretary, Dr Liam Fox, that the Strategic Defence Review is now underway. The author of the report, Professor Paul Rogers, warns that the Government “may be shooting itself in the foot, unless it reconsiders costly programmes that are already under way such as the aircraft carriers and Trident replacement. Carrying on with these will hugely constrain the kind of review that Britain really needs.”

The report welcomes the establishment of the cross-departmental National Security Council and points to recent Green Papers that begin to discuss issues such as climate change, economic marginalisation and mass migration as wider future security threats, but concludes that in spite of this, the actual defence posture has barely escaped Cold War thinking and is still not in tune with the new global security trends. “If these issues are not integral to the review, the size and cost of current projects will determine a role for Britain in international security that bears little relation to the issues of global insecurity and conflict, which will be dominant in the next two to three decades,” says Professor Rogers.

The report thoroughly assesses the problems and their alternatives and calls for:

--A full-scale, integrated inter-departmental review - overseen at Cabinet Office level - that looks beyond power projection and just maintaining the status quo. The Review should address underlying drivers of global insecurity such as climate change, competition for energy resources, poverty and marginalisation, mass migration and trans-national radicalisation. These must be at the forefront of a much broader international security review and need to go far beyond the remit of the Ministry of Defence.

-- A reassessment of “big ticket” projects, which are inappropriate for Britain’s security needs in the 21st Century. The aircraft carrier/F-35 programme should be cancelled and Trident scaled down before more money is wasted.

-- On defence spending, tough measures need to be instituted, including the establishment of a Defence Procurement Authority, an independent procurement watchdog, to prevent defence programmes spiralling out of control like the Nimrod MR4A fiasco - described in the briefing.

Paul Rogers argues that a new approach to security is essential: “Revolts from the margins such as the Red Shirts in Thailand and the Naxalites in India are indicators of the unstable world we face in the future, and this is before the impact of climate change begins to kick in. The 9/11 attacks showed that even the most powerful state cannot ‘close the castle gates’.”

“Trying to keep the lid on global problems – ‘liddism’ – simply will not work. We need a fundamental rethink of our attitudes to global security, and a comprehensive security review would be a hugely important first step. If the Government persists with the current narrow defence review, it will be a real lost opportunity, right at the start of a new parliament.”

Oxford Research Group (ORG) is an independent London-based non-party organisation and think tank, which seeks to bring about positive change on issues of national and international security. Established in 1982, it is now considered to be one of the UK’s leading global security think tanks.

Click here for the full report (5 pages in PDF format) on the ORG website.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/MayEn10.pdf

-ends-

[Zen9]

OK so now all I can do is a quick reply?!!

Well this ORG stuff looks like so much drivel. Euro-centric, peacenik and very much stuck in Cold War thinking themselves.

CVF is entirely post Cold War in conception, it marks not a return to 'liddism' but a return to the traditional UK stance, global involvement. For the last70 years we've had the distorting attitude that we must utterly concentrate of Europe and continental landbased force. Very dissconnected from UK trade and global influence. The return of the RN to prominance is a move back to the more traditional stance and CVF is central to that, and central to using force to end situations that endanger the UKs interests. Thats not keeping a lid on, thats going in and shutting off the gas, emptying the pot and putting it away.

A RN that focused only on ASW and the North Atlantic is a highly constrained force, less able to project power for the UKs national interests and a fleet without adequet airpower on a CV is essentialy tied to landbased airpower. Either within range of the UK and its overseas bases or at the 'cost' of negotiated HNA (cost being more than monetry).

F35-B, is as part of the JSF variants, the only game in town for most Western states to acquire a LO 5th Gen multirole aircraft. That was a decision taken by the UK, the US and other European states to sacrifice the potential for alternatives to make supposed 'savings' in scale of numbers purchased and size of produce. While it is available to convert CVF to CATOBAR operations the increased costs and reduced operational availability make this supposed 'cheap option' of a move to the likes of Rafale or SuperHornet in fact, more not less expensive.

By this same token the increasing involvement of the UK outside Europe makes it more not less likely potential enemy states will seek the UKs removal, a Deterrent, which is either functional and effective or not is the only course for such a level of involvement. Functional, in that it works when we issue the command to work, and effective in that it produced the required level of destruction to deterr.
CAS is the only option for a Deterrent, any publical known gaps in operation are the periodes when an enemy state will be emboldend to act, knowing the Deterrent is not available for 'revenge from beyond the grave'.

UK Defence budget is 'just' 2.4 % of GDP, less than France with its greater landward commitments, and increased costs from unilateral development of systems like their own Deterrent, Charles DeGaulle and Rafale.

[Gubler, A.]

Paul Rogers argues that a new approach to security is essential: “Revolts from the margins such as the Red Shirts in Thailand and the Naxalites in India are indicators of the unstable world we face in the future,

LOL what's new about oppressed and poor peasants revolting against central power! Someone should remind "Mr New Approaches" about Wat Tyler. This whole report is just mumbling of buzzwords with no real strategic and force structure/capability development understanding.

[buglerbilly]

From today's Sunday Times.........extract only for Defence.........


About 20,000 jobs will be lost at the Ministry of Defence as the department faces a demand to reduce its administrative costs by 25%. Ministry insiders say the cuts are set to hit military personnel, including some frontline soldiers.

Ministers have tried to insist that any public sector job losses would be mainly among the “penpushing” bureaucrats, but answers received under freedom of information requests suggest that a wide variety of different professions will be hit.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

UK MOD Avoids Budget Cut, For Now

Posted by Robert Wall at 5/24/2010 5:29 AM CDT

I don't know what he bases this comment on but its clear from public announcements, see above, that they are looking for a 25% reduction in the MoD civvie servant element at least................

The first installment of the British government’s effort to start tackling its ₤156 billion deficit has left defense largely untouched.

In announcing the initial ₤6.2 billion in cuts to be implemented this year Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Laws says defense and international development will not have their budgets reduced. Any savings that will be made will be put back into the two accounts.

The foreign policy field will see some retrenchment, with the foreign office taking a ₤55 million hit; international development funding, like defense, is unaffected.

That means most of the cuts will come as the government unveils the outcome of its strategic defense review later this year. That cuts will be made is all but a forgone conclusion, not least because the Treasury was given a prominent role at the table.

[buglerbilly]

Britain's Defense Choices: What To Cut

Published: 24 May 2010

Britain's new coalition government faces interrelated challenges: reining in the country's soaring debt by quickly cutting spending, and spearheading a defense review to shape the country's military future.

Although the new Strategic Defence and Security Review won't be finished for another six months, it's clear that major cuts are coming. Last week, the new government said it is working to reduce operating costs by 25 percent and will shrink Ministry of Defence's top-line budget.

That's a tall order for Britain's ever-shrinking military. With large and continual combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, it's easy to forget how tiny the U.K. armed forces is: about 185,000 uniformed personnel, smaller than the U.S. Marine Corps.

After steady military cuts over the past few decades, how much more can be cut before current and future capabilities are seriously compromised?

For a decade, Britain has been on a modern-ization drive that was never fully funded, so with the nation now in financial straits, plans must change.

The trouble is, Britain's military has been cutting for years to make ends meet. Urgent operational requirements have covered only war-related equipment purchases, so the Royal Air Force and Navy have cut people and platforms to pay for modernization programs. And that was before actual spending cuts became imperative. So what to cut?

Before becoming U.K. defense secretary, Liam Fox mused about making deep cuts to defense civilians and selling off stocks of unused MoD real estate to raise money. Putting the real estate on the block could help, but those few billion pounds will be raised over many years, not quickly enough help redress immediate needs.

But the idea of cutting civilians is key. Britain has already cut uniformed personnel by boosting reliance on civilians and contractors to maintain and upgrade systems. It must further cut its support tail to boost what vital combat tooth it has left.

To do that, the Tories should resurrect their own "Frontline First" defense strategy, make greater and more innovative use of contractors, and slash back-office staff who add more cost than value.

And troop levels should be pared once Britain ends its participation in NATO's Afghanistan operations.

On the weapons side, the MoD should retire aging tanks, vehicles and artillery. The RAF may have to do with fewer fighters and the Navy could delay its program to replace four Vanguard-class ballistic missile subs.

But several programs must be preserved: two new aircraft carriers, new frigates, more attack submarines, the Joint Strike Fighter, a host of C4ISR initiatives, and efforts to modernize Britain's war-weary ground forces.

If these cuts prove insufficient, the next logical, if painful, step is to do away with capability areas, turning Britain's military into a boutique force better suited to peacekeeping than combat missions, an option out of synch with the country's role as a small but important world power.

the stakes for Britain are higher than ever. Will the coalition government further the country's decline as a military power, or craft a plan that streamlines and modernizes the force to maintain and build upon its ability to project power?

We'll find out in six months.

[buglerbilly]

Britain Reveals Nuclear Warhead Levels

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 26 May 2010 10:47

LONDON - Britain's new government revealed May 26 the planned size of its nuclear weapons stockpile, saying it will not exceed 225 warheads.

In an announcement that comes near the end of a U.N. non-proliferation conference in New York, it said it will retain up to 160 operationally available warheads.

"We believe that the time is now right to be more open about the weapons we hold," Foreign Secretary William Hague told parliament.

"We judge that this will assist in building a climate of trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states and contribute therefore to future efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons worldwide."

Previous announcements have acknowledged the existence of a margin above the operationally available warheads, but have not set out its size.

The U.N. nuclear non-proliferation review conference in New York is due to close on May 28.

The U.S. and France have previously made similar announcements of their total stockpile numbers.

[buglerbilly]

From The Times June 2, 2010

Defence chief who earns £100,000 more than Cameron could be asked to go early

Jill Sherman, Suzy Jagger

The salary of Britain’s top military commander came under scrutiny yesterday after it emerged that he earns £100,000 more than the Prime Minister.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, earns £245,000 a year plus perks — £80,000 more than the heads of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army.

Sir Jock, who attended yesterday’s meeting of the National Security Council at Chequers, is the fourth highest-paid public servant and earns more than ten times the salary of a private serving in Afghanistan.

There is already speculation that Sir Jock will be asked to stand down this summer or early autumn, well before his retirement date next April. His successor is unlikely to command the same salary, given David Cameron’s determination to cut public sector pay.

Defence experts also agreed yesterday that with spending under severe strain it was time to review the top salaries in the Armed Forces. The Ministry of Defence has already been asked to cut costs by 25 per cent.

Figures released by the Cabinet Office show that 22 MoD officials earn more than £150,000. General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nicholas Houghton, Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, both possible replacements for Sir Jock, earn £165,000-£169,000.

Colonel Christopher Langton, a defence and security analyst, said that in the past it had been hardly questioned that the head of the Armed Forces should be paid a lot more than other officers. “But the whole position has become skewed by the economic crisis and his salary is being compared with the rest of Whitehall. Everyone now has a sense of responsibility over levels of public sector pay,” Colonel Langton said.

“The Prime Minister has taken a pay cut and we now have to look at the top tranches of the Armed Forces and review the gap between the top and the bottom.”

Patrick Mercer, the Conservative MP for Newark and a former battalion commander, also expressed concern about the big disparity between Sir Jock’s salary and those of his colleagues. “There does seem to be a huge differential between the Chief of the Defence Staff and the rungs below,” Mr Mercer said. “Serving officers also receive huge perks, including cars, domestic servants, drivers, batmen and the like. When the defence budget is being squeezed very hard the salary of senior officers needs to be addressed, bearing in mind that infantry privates in Afghanistan are on £20,000.”

Some members of the Government are said to be pressing for Sir Jock to retire before the Strategic Defence and Security Review concludes this autumn, when policy and spending commitments will be revised.

Senior Whitehall sources have said that it makes sense for a soldier rather than an airman to run the Armed Forces up to 2014 because of Britain’s continuing role in Afghanistan. General Richards and General Houghton are both army candidates with command experience in the field. The pay of some of Mr Cameron’s chief advisers also came under scrutiny yesterday. John Prescott, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to list the salaries of all those working alongside him.

Mr Prescott argued that Andy Coulson, the new director of communications at Downing Street, has not been included in the list even though the BBC reported that he is paid £475,000 a year. A spokesman for No 10 would not confirm the amount, but indicated that Mr Coulson’s pay would be met entirely by the taxpayer.

[buglerbilly]

U.K. Awaits Major Defense Cuts

Jun 2, 2010

By Francis Tusa
London

I’m relieved that we have actually got a government in place, and it looks to be pretty robust,” a senior U.K. military source said in the aftermath of the coalition deal between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, following the inconclusive general election on May 6. There had been considerable fear that days or weeks of deal-making between the various political parties would lead to government gridlock, and that this would have had an impact on procurement, as well as the planned Strategic Defense Review (SDR).

The general shape of the new team inside the Main Building at the Defense Ministry is what had been expected: Former shadow minister Liam Fox is secretary of state, and former shadow spokesman for defense equipment Gerald Howarth is under secretary of state. But the necessities of a coalition mean that not all of the Conservative team could slide across into their selected chairs at the ministry. The Liberal Democrat shadow defense spokesman, Nick Harvey, has been appointed minister of state for the armed forces, which gives him responsibility for such areas as personnel, operations and bilateral issues outside NATO/Europe. But at press time four ministerial posts were still unfilled, although most were likely to be staffed with people from the majority Conservative party.

The general election campaign highlighted the differences between the coalition partners. The key difference was that the Liberal Democrats believe that a “like for like” replacement of the current Trident nuclear deterrent is unaffordable, and cheaper alternatives, such as a cruise missile-based system, should be considered. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have always stated that there will be a full replacement for Trident, and that this would be submarine-based and involve ballistic, not cruise, missiles. Trident was one of the Conservative party’s “Red Line” issues when they were negotiating with the Liberal Democrats.

Apart from this, taking the two parties’ manifestos at face value, there is little that the partners don’t agree on concerning defense. Both believe there should be a proper SDR and a more integrated defense/security policy, and both talk in general terms about widening the scope of the U.K.’s defense alliances.

However, the absence of in-depth information about what either party wants to do with the Defense Ministry and defense means there is still a lack of clarity. But one thing is certain: With a £176-billion ($255-billion) budget deficit this year, and an equally large one next year, without major cuts in government spending there will be serious budget cuts at the ministry. Prior to the general election, Main Building talk suggested that a “good result” would be cuts of 8-10% in the headline budget figure, but with some discussing a possible 20% cut. The former figure would be a cut of some £3.5-4 billion a year, the latter £8 billion-plus. The higher figure is, in effect, the size of the Netherlands’ defense budget.

These cuts come in the wake of the public realization that the ministry’s procurement budget is not just under pressure, but heading toward bankruptcy. Before an “Equipment Examination” at the end of 2009, the Gray Report on procurement calculated that the total cost of all the programs factored into the procurement program was as much as £20 billion over the money allotted to the Defense Ministry. A reassessment of programs reduced this forecast overspend to “as little as” £9 billion, equivalent to close to two years’ equipment procurement spending.

There will be pain to come, and even before the SDR reports there are likely to be cuts—prior to the general election, Fox said that if he became secretary of state, one large, totemic program would be cut straight away, as a sign that nothing is beyond consideration.

But the SDR will provide the doctrinal foundation for further program cuts. The size and shape of all three services will change—the talk of the Royal Air Force losing 25% of its fast combat aircraft has been common as one example—and roles, missions and capabilities will change. The only question is whether the SDR will be a truly foreign policy-led study, or will simply be one of those reviews where the result—cuts—is known beforehand and planners have to come up with a document that looks as if it were well thought out.

Credit: Crown Copyright

[buglerbilly]

A Question of Balance? The Deficit and Defence Priorities

(Source: Royal United Services Institute; issued June 3, 2010)

The deeper the immediate budget cuts that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has to make, the greater the risk of reduced capability without commensurate financial gains, argues the latest Future Defence Review Working Paper from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

“A Question of Balance? The Deficit and Defence Priorities” warns that, if the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) focuses primarily on balancing the MoD's books over the next 3-4 years, it will be a “tragically missed opportunity.”

Although the extent and timing of reductions in the MoD budget will not be revealed until the autumn spending review, a 10-15 per cent real cut over the next six years remains a 'plausible, if perhaps optimistic' scenario according to report author Professor Malcolm Chalmers.

The magnitude of likely reductions is such, the paper argues, that the pain will have to be shared across a range of ground, air and maritime capabilities.

Illustrating the consequences of such a 'balanced reductions' policy for the medium-term, the paper estimates that the MoD could face a cut in total service personnel numbers of around 20-25 per cent by 2019, together with reductions in ground force formations from 98 in 2009 to around 80 by 2019, aircraft falling from 760 to 550 and major vessels from 57 to 45.

Chalmers argues that the SDSR will need to examine whether sustaining the ability to repeat the scale of current Afghanistan operations is compatible with preserving capabilities needed for serving other defence needs. The paper also highlights other capabilities that would need to be assessed further to ensure 'balanced reductions' including the size of the fixed-wing combat aircraft fleet, the need for a second aircraft carrier, and the timing of Trident renewal.

“A new government, with a full parliamentary term ahead of it, creates the opportunity for a fresh look at defence policy and management, unencumbered by the need for consistency with the accumulated decisions of its predecessors. The fiscal crisis creates the necessity for such a fresh look, for all agree that things cannot go on as they are,” writes Chalmers.

“But the greatest efficiency saving of all would be to put the defence budget back onto a sustainable path, in which plans are realistic, and commitments (once made) can be honoured. One of the central problems that has bedevilled past defence planning has been that it has always seemed to be either too early or too late to make tough decisions on procurement and future capabilities. Ministers have been happy to postpone politically difficult decisions where they can, while suffering the consequences of the non-decisions (or under-costed decisions) made by predecessors...

“...there is now a real opportunity to buck the trend and make the hard decisions necessary to balance the books for the next two decades, and not just for the next three years.”

The paper concludes by arguing that, although the UK will remain one of Europe's leading powers, its military capability is likely to continue to decline in relative terms compared with rising Asian powers, resulting in increased dependency on multilateral alliances to ensure its national security.

Click here for the full report (20 pages in PDF format) on the RUSI website.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR7.pdf

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

U.K. MoD To 'Reset Relationship' With Industry

By ANDREW CHUTER

Published: 10 Jun 2010 12:35

LONDON - British Defence Secretary Liam Fox has admitted the current defense program is unaffordable and has promised that a strategic defense and security review due out in November will make tough choices on major programs, rather than "salami slicing," to achieve a coherent, long-term plan.


A British Challenger-2 tank in Basra, Iraq. (ESSAM AL-SUDANI / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE)

In a letter released today to Ministry of Defence staff outlining the new Conservative-led coalition government's priorities, Fox said he was determined the review would bring "defense policy, plans, commitments and resources into balance and produce over time a transformative change to British defense."

He warned the government intends to "reset the MoD relationship with the defense industry to reflect our changed economic circumstances and push ahead with the process of acquisition reform."

Fox promised to improve the 2005 defense industrial strategy but didn't say whether it would be part of the strategic review or undertaken later, as some expect. He also committed to revitalizing Britain's defense export effort

"This will not be a salami-slicing review, but one which provides coherent, long-term policy direction and takes the tough choices required to produce the armed forces and wider defense capabilities the country will need in the decades ahead," he said.

The new defense secretary singled out defense support as an area where the government intends to bear down on costs.

"We will be seeking improved value for money and greater efficiency wherever possible," he said in the letter.

Industry executives are expecting to boost contractor involvement in defense activities as the MoD seeks to drive down support and other costs.

Fox said he is committed to the coalition government's plan to cut MoD operation costs by 25 percent. "This will require some tough decisions with impact in many areas of the department," he said.

With the potential for sweeping changes coming at the MoD, Fox announced he is establishing a defense reform unit to help plan and implement alterations to the structure and organization of his department in the wake of the review. The new unit will complete its task within a year, with early high-level recommendations woven into a strategic review.

Fighting the war in Afghanistan remains the government's top priority, but the strategic review, which is slated to examine the overall shape, size and role of the armed forces, including the reserves and MoD civil servants, comes second, he said.

The review is expected to result in program cuts, base closures, reductions in military capabilities such as main battle tanks, heavy artillery and fast jets, and downsizing and restructuring of parts of the armed forces and civilian personnel.

Fox described the review as cross-government, policy-led and resource-informed. That tones down earlier language from the new coalition government, which said in a joint manifesto after the May 6 election that the review would be undertaken with "strong involvement of the Treasury."

The review is being undertaken against a stark global and national financial situation, Fox said.

"The government has inherited a forward defense program that is simply unaffordable against likely future resources. I have set in hand work to review all the major equipment and support contracts to ensure the future program is coherent with future defense needs and can be afforded," he told staff.

Britain's defense equipment commitments are at least 6 billion pounds ($8.7 billion) over budget, even without any upcoming cuts to help pay down the country's huge public finance debt.

The United States remains Britain's major partner, but the government intends to step-up bilateral co-operation with France and other partners, he said.

[buglerbilly]

Defence Secretary Sets Out His Priorities

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued June 10, 2010)

Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, has written a message to all military and civilian personnel setting out his objectives, priorities and intent for how policy will be translated into action in the months ahead.

Dr Fox's full message to all military and civilian staff follows:

"Following discussions with my MOD ministerial colleagues, PUS [Permanent Under Secretary], CDS [Chief of the Defence Staff], and other members of my top team, I have agreed the following objectives and priorities for the remainder of 2010.

"Afghanistan will remain the top priority. Our people in theatre must get the best possible support. Counter-insurgency needs strategic patience but by the end of the year I expect that we can show significant progress with the mission, building on previous achievements, consolidating ISAF's hold in central Helmand, and accelerating the training of the Afghan security forces that is already ahead of target.

"Achieving success in Afghanistan must not prevent us from conducting our other operational commitments effectively or from preparing to meet other contingencies, particularly in the Middle East. I shall be conducting a thorough stocktake of our contingency plans in the months ahead.

"The focus for many of us in the next six months, and my second priority, will be on conducting a cross-Government, policy-led, resource-informed Strategic Defence and Security Review [SDSR]. I am determined that this exercise will bring defence policy, plans, commitments and resources into balance, and produce over time a transformative change to British Defence. This will not be a salami-slicing review but one which provides coherent long-term policy direction and takes the tough choices required to produce the Armed Forces and wider defence capabilities the country will need in the decades ahead.

"One reason why tough choices are needed is that the Government has inherited a forward defence programme that is simply unaffordable against likely future resources. We need to break out of the culture by which key equipment programmes are regularly delayed for affordability reasons. I have set in hand work to review all the major equipment and support contracts to ensure the future programme is coherent with future defence needs and can be afforded.

"At the heart of the SDSR will be a thorough examination of our force structure, looking at the overall shape, size and role of Armed Forces personnel and MOD civil servants, including the Reserve Forces. I am, however, determined that the Armed Forces and the MOD Civil Service should continue to employ high quality people. We will need to ensure we motivate the people who will continue to provide the core of defence capability. In recognition of the demands the country places on our Service personnel, I will also look to improve the package of welfare and healthcare for those who serve, particularly in the area of mental health, and to make improvements to accommodation wherever possible within budgetary constraints.

"In every aspect of Defence, and particularly in the support area, I shall be looking to bear down on costs, seeking improved value for money and greater efficiency wherever possible. As part of this work I intend to follow through on the commitment in the Coalition Agreement to reduce the MOD's running costs by 25 per cent. This will require some tough decisions with impact in many areas of the Department.

"The SDSR will inevitably impact on how Defence is structured and organised. I intend to establish a Defence Reform Unit to help plan and implement these changes. Mindful of the scale of other challenges, this work will proceed on a separate track with a view to completion by this time next year, though early high level findings may have to be woven into the SDSR.

"Internationally, the core of UK security must remain NATO, which should be our instrument of first choice for collective security challenges. The US will be our major partner but we will also step up bilateral co-operation with France and other partners, and revitalise a broad programme of defence diplomacy. I also intend to revitalise our approach to defence exports. This has the potential to both increase UK influence and safeguard UK defence jobs. Within NATO, I shall be arguing the case for accelerating the process of reform, giving the alliance a more robust new strategic concept, and taking a more strategic approach to European burden-sharing.

"Finally, I expect also to reset the MOD's relationship with the defence industry to reflect our changed economic circumstances and push ahead with the process of acquisition reform. More than ever the focus will in future be on getting the Armed Forces the equipment they need when they need it, at a price we can afford. To that end I intend to update and improve the Defence Industrial Strategy.

"The year ahead promises to be very challenging for all of us. The operational tempo looks set to stay high and there is a real prospect of having to deal with additional contingencies. We will need to complete the SDSR in less than half the time it took to conduct the last major defence review. And the global and national financial situation provides a stark backdrop.

"But I hope that, like me, you also regard the period ahead as an opportunity to put Britain's defence on a stronger, more stable footing. You will all have the opportunity to contribute to this programme of change. My ministerial team and I have been greatly impressed with the professionalism and frankness with which we have been welcomed into the MOD, and find the bravery, dedication and capability of our personnel to be genuinely inspiring. What you do matters to every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom.

"I look forward to working with you in the period ahead."

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

From The Times June 12, 2010

MoD must drop ‘Yes Minister’ approach to Afghanistan, say Tory MPs

Deborah Haynes

Politicians accused the Ministry of Defence last night of failing to give them the full picture in briefings on military operations, such as the British deployment in Helmand, Afghanistan, and described the MoD’s relationship with Whitehall as “dysfunctional”. Adam Holloway, a Conservative MP and former member of the Defence Select Committee, said that generals and senior civil servants had not spoken with sufficient candour to the committee. He said: “It is very frustrating ... there is no doubt that the Defence Select Committee has been consistently dissembled to.”

His comments follow an investigation by The Times this week which revealed that the top brass ignored warnings that Britain was ill-prepared to send troops to Helmand and signed off a plan that was under-resourced and over-ambitious from the start. Other allegations included a “Yes, Minister” culture, in which military chiefs gave the advice they thought politicians wanted to hear.

“I felt quite sorry for the Labour ministers because they just weren’t getting the ground truth from the military,” said Mr Holloway, who spent time during his military career in the mountains of Afghanistan in the 1980s with Mujahidin guerrillas.

Mr Holloway recalled an independent trip he made a couple of years ago to Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital of Helmand where British Forces are based, to get a feel for the situation through speaking to local people. One lesson he learnt was that land disputes at that time were not being resolved by going through the British-approved local governor and that people preferred to take their grievances to a nearby village to ask the Taleban to settle their problems.

A week later, Mr Holloway, who believes that a major rethink is needed for the Nato-led strategy in Afghanistan, returned to Lashkar Gah on a trip sponsored by the MoD. He said: “Talking to the senior military, it was like they were talking about a completely different place. They’d say, ‘Everything is going wonderfully, everything is according to plan. Of course, there are some challenges’.”

Bernard Jenkin, also a Conservative MP and former member of the Defence Select Committee, said that lessons must be learnt from Britain’s operations in southern Afghanistan and southern Iraq. “It is clear that the relationship between the MoD and the rest of Whitehall is dysfunctional,” Mr Jenkin said. “Senior officer training should discuss more openly how to deal with military-political interface.”

Mr Jenkin said that politicians needed to understand the military mind better. “David Cameron could start by taking himself and a few of his senior colleagues for a weekend of military immersion to the Defence Academy at Shrivenham.”

Looking at the problem more broadly, Mark Etherington, a civilian development expert, who was one of the key witnesses contacted by The Times investigation, said the experiences of the Army in Basra and Helmand pointed to a serious deficiency at the centre of British military policy-making, planning and execution.

He said: “There have been assumptions made in both theatres that were very wide of the mark by, one assumes, the senior people whose job it is to advise the Government. There is limited experience and understanding of conflict at Whitehall’s centre, and a resultant mismatch between our strategic desires and our implementation mechanisms. We need to fix this.”

Mr Etherington suggested that a central body was needed to oversee and co-ordinate the work of the MoD, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development — the three ministries involved in the Afghanistan campaign. “There is no doubt that Helmand represents best current practice, so far as we have been able to evolve it. But there is more to do,” Mr Etherington said.

“The difficulty I see is that there is no ‘address’ for what we call the comprehensive approach in central government. Cabinet Office could do it, but it is weak, under-resourced and lacks the motivation. So we miss a repository of knowledge, expertise and oversight at the centre ... At the moment we lurch from theatre to theatre with no real sense of where we last left off.”

[buglerbilly]

From The Sunday Times June 13, 2010

Defence chief to be axed


Liam Fox, the defence secretary, told The Sunday Times that Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup would quit his post in the autumn

Michael Smith and Jonathan Oliver

BRITAIN’S most senior military officer is to be axed as the new government seeks to draw a line under past failures in Afghanistan.

Liam Fox, the defence secretary, told The Sunday Times the chief of the defence staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, would resign in the autumn before the end of his term.

Sir Bill Jeffrey, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence (MoD), will go at the same time. The clean sweep at the top is intended to improve the military’s performance on the Afghan front line, as well as cutting Whitehall waste.

In an interview Fox indicated that Stirrup and Jeffrey, both close to the old Labour regime, would be replaced at the conclusion of a strategic defence review (SDR).

Fox said he wanted “the best people to be in the appropriate posts” once the review was over. “We have to be able to maintain full stability and the full confidence of the people who work for us, not least because we’re in a very dangerous armed conflict,” he said.

Stirrup has been criticised for not doing enough to support frontline troops.

The decision to replace them coincides with one of the worst weeks for Nato forces since the start of the war in Afghanistan in 2001. Thirty-two Nato troops, including three Britons, have been killed since last Sunday. The latest Briton to die was a soldier in the 1st Battalion, the Mercian Regiment, who was killed in an explosion in Helmand province yesterday.

Patrick Mercer, the Conservative MP and former soldier, said the change at the top of the MoD was desperately needed. “The last regime allowed our men to go into Helmand improperly prepared, while huge sums of money were squandered on projects such as the refurbishment of the Ministry of Defence,” he said.

Another Tory backbencher, Adam Holloway, a former Guards officer, said: “There was a tendency under the Labour government to promote ‘politicians in uniform’ rather than officers willing to give frank advice about the strategic drift in Afghanistan.”

Colonel Tim Collins, who quit the army over the lack of funding, said: “Jock Stirrup was a well-known apologist for Labour muddled thinking over Afghanistan.”

In the Sunday Times interview Fox issued a strong attack on Nato colleagues, warning that if their refusal to back the Afghan mission led to defeat, it would demonstrate “lack of moral resolve”.

He indicated Stirrup and Jeffrey would be replaced swiftly. “I’ve been discussing with them and other senior staff how we transition to the new structures,” Fox said. “We’ve talked about the best time to be replacing our senior staff, probably the end of the SDR in the autumn.” He said their departure would take place at a “time that treats our long-serving personnel with some respect”.

Critics have accused Stirrup, a former jet pilot, of failing to get a grip on the Afghan mission, where British deaths have hit 294. The death toll in the Falklands was 255.

Appointed as head of the armed forces in 2006, Stirrup had his contract extended by Gordon Brown two years later to prevent the outspoken General Sir Richard Dannatt from getting the top job.

Stirrup, who earns £245,000 a year, was set to continue in his post until next spring. He is likely to be replaced by an army man, either the chief of the general staff, General Sir David Richards, or the vice-chief of the defence staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton.

Rear-Admiral Chris Parry, who left the navy in 2008, said Stirrup’s successor should “stand clear of political considerations”.

“Officers have been willing to let themselves be politicised as a means of climbing up the promotion ladder,” he said.

Jeffrey, who has a salary of £180,000, has been permanent under-secretary since 2005, during which time the MoD budget spiralled out of control, creating a £36 billion “black hole”.

A damning report by Bernard Gray, a former MoD special adviser, said the department’s “incompetent” equipment programme was damaging the troops’ ability to win in Afghanistan.

Amid the pressure for large cuts, Fox said no area of spending would escape scrutiny and refused to rule out reductions in uniformed personnel.

“There will be major change,” Fox said. “This is the review that has to kiss goodbye to the cold war. That will require us to be quite tough . . . every single thing must be justified.”

The defence secretary admitted that troops still did not have all the equipment they needed to do the job. “It’s clear that all the equipment necessary is not yet in theatre,” he said. “I’ve asked if that can be speeded up.”

British forces could begin coming home from Afghanistan next year, he said. But that was dependent on Afghan troops being able to enforce security.

“We don’t want to be in Afghanistan for a day longer than necessary, and we want the government of Afghanistan to be done by Afghans for Afghans, but it has to be against a background where it doesn’t pose any security threat to the UK, our interests, or our allies.”

Rounding on other Nato countries, Fox claimed that only the US and Britain were pulling their weight.

“I can understand why some of our Nato partners have problems sending combat troops, whether for political reasons or for constitutional reasons,” he said. “But I have absolutely no patience that they cannot send training troops.”

He said the failure of Nato countries to provide such troops was the result of “a lack of political will and lack of moral resolve”.

“Ourselves and the United States are hugely committed to the mission and everybody else needs to catch up,” he said.

[buglerbilly]

From The Sunday Times June 13, 2010

Troops could be cut as Fox sharpens his axe


Royal Marines test new weapons
Marine Jon Crookes with M4 Super 90 Benelli Combat Shotgun

Michael Smith and Jonathan Oliver

THE number of Britain’s soldiers, sailors and airmen could be cut as part of the government’s new security review.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, said nothing had been been ruled out — even cuts to the numbers of uniformed personnel.

“Every single bit of the operation must come under scrutiny. Every single thing must be justified,” Fox said. Until now the coalition government has insisted that savings would come principally from cuts in the bloated bureaucracy and over-budget equipment programmes of the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Fox conceded last week that there might not be as much “fat in the system” as he had previously thought. While the overall defence budget would be protected, dramatic savings would still have to be made, he said.

The Tory, who was a GP before he entered politics, said: “Ring-fenced means we get to have elective surgery, not emergency surgery.”

With the cost of MoD personnel topping £12 billion, a third of the defence budget, Fox said staff costs would have to be addressed: “I am not ruling out anything at all. Do I think there is fat in the system? Yes, I do. Could we get to the point we find there is not as much fat as we thought? Potentially.”

The number of uniformed personnel in the three services is 190,000, with the army at its smallest since Waterloo. Any further reductions could lead to a revolt by Tory backbenchers.

Fox refused to say which equipment programmes would be axed, but he offered some broad hints. There was good news for the Royal Navy, with Fox suggesting the number of ships had already been cut too much. “We’re going to have an increased maritime role because if you look at issues like energy security and piracy, that’s already pushing us in one direction,” he said.

The RAF is likely to have fewer fast jets designed to challenge Russian bombers over the North Sea, but more helicopters for moving troops and equipment in Afghanistan.

Posing the key questions for the review, Fox said: “Have we cut the surface fleets too much in order to buy high-end capability? In terms of the air force, have we previously concentrated too much on fast jets compared to lift capability?”

Fox said too little had changed in the MoD since the fall of the Berlin Wall more than two decades ago. “This is the review that has to kiss goodbye to the cold war,” he said.

Fox was speaking ahead of a speech tomorrow in which he will blame the scale of the cuts required on the Labour administration, which “mismanaged defence to such an extent that the future programme is entirely unaffordable”.

The conclusion of the defence review in the autumn will also herald personnel changes at the top.

Out will go Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of the defence staff. Also set to leave is Sir Bill Jeffrey, the MoD’s most senior civil servant.

Fox revealed that both men are set to leave their posts within months: “We’ve talked about the best time to be replacing our senior staff, probably the end of the SDR [strategic defence and security review] in the autumn.”

Fox was careful not to criticise Stirrup or Jeffrey publicly. However, many Tories have long thought the senior team at the MoD had become too close to the old Labour regime and wedded to the failed strategies in Afghanistan.

The defence secretary dropped a heavy hint that the next head of the armed forces would come from the army, the service that is bearing the brunt of the fighting in Helmand. “I want the best people to be in the appropriate posts,” Fox said.

Was the ousting of Stirrup a result of behind-the-scenes pressure from General Sir Richard Dannatt, the outspoken former head of the army who now advises the Tories? Fox emphasised that Dannatt was just one of many people he had consulted, including former Labour cabinet ministers.

While Fox clearly hopes some British forces could start to return home next year as the training of the Afghan national army accelerates, he cautioned against “unrealistic” expectations.

Standing by his earlier remarks that Afghanistan had been left by the Taliban as a “13th-century country”, he said: “I can understand why people want to give very optimistic messages. But there is danger in those timescales because they are likely to lead to disappointment at home and are likely to lead to frustration in Afghanistan.”

[buglerbilly]

From The Times June 14, 2010

Lame duck defence chief Sir Jock Stirrup ‘must go now’

(David Bebber/The Times)


Sir Jock Stirrup, Britain's chief of defence staff, said if tensions between India and Pakistan escalated there was a risk everyone could be diverted from dealing with terrorism

Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

Former senior officers have criticised the decision to leave Britain’s top military commander in charge of a long-awaited defence review after it was announced that he would be stepping down early.

General Sir David Richards, head of the Army, and General Sir Nicholas Houghton, Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, are the front-runners to succeed Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, who will leave in the autumn when the Strategic Defence and Security Review is due to be completed. The departure date is several months before his second term as Chief of the Defence Staff is due to expire.

“It seems illogical to keep someone in place as the head of the Armed Forces who is not going to be in charge of implementing the defence review,” said Major-General Patrick Cordingley, who commanded 7th Armoured Brigade in the Gulf War. “It seems to make more sense to make the change before the majority of the review is carried out.”

Colonel Stuart Tootal, a former commander of 3 Para in Afghanistan, said: “It makes absolute sense to try to get a new team in as quickly as possible. There is a well-tried military maxim that he who plans, must also execute.”

Colonel Richard Kemp, who also served in Afghanistan, said that there was perhaps a desire to avoid a sense of moving Sir Jock on with “indecent haste”. He told The Times: “As long as the Government makes known pretty soon who the successor is going to be then he [the incoming chief] will have the real power in the defence review.”

Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, announced at the weekend the widely expected decision to accelerate the exit of Sir Jock as well as Sir Bill Jeffrey, the Ministry of Defence’s Permanent Under-Secretary. He said that the end of the defence review — a critical process that will decide the shape and size of Britain’s Armed Forces — in the autumn was seen as the best time for the two men to leave.

The news comes days after The Times revealed how military chiefs and senior civil servants ignored warnings about under-resourcing and over-ambition and agreed to a deeply flawed plan to send troops to Helmand in 2006. Allegations also included a “Yes Minister” culture within the MoD, with the top brass accused of telling politicians what they wanted to hear.

The Times revealed in January that pressure was building on Sir Jock to step down in favour of an experienced Army officer who could better deal with the ground war in Afghanistan.

A Whitehall source described the Chief of the Defence Staff as “dead meat” whoever won the general election. Ministers had only avoided forcing him out because Labour wanted to avoid another damaging row with a senior military figure, the source said.

Adam Holloway, a Tory MP and former Army officer, said that Sir Jock, 60, was at the top of an MoD where a culture of “politicians in uniform” had been allowed to evolve. “In this environment officers are rewarded for sticking closely to the orthodoxy — and few are promoted for telling how it is.”

Sir Jock, a pilot, was head of the RAF when the decision was taken to send a battle group into Helmand as part of a wider Nato expansion into southern Afghanistan. He became Chief of the Defence Staff in April 2006.

The British death toll in Afghanistan is fast approaching 300, with the majority of casualties having occurred in Helmand over the past four years.

[buglerbilly]

SDSR to make 'clean break' from 'Cold War mindset' Defence Secretary says

A Defence Policy and Business news article

14 Jun 10

In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London this morning Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox has said that the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) will make a clean break from the thinking of the past and will be 'ruthless and without sentiment'.


Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox
[Picture: Sergeant Andy Malthouse, Crown Copyright/MOD 2010]

Dr Fox began by saying that the SDSR would be led by the requirement to deliver and support the sort of foreign policy the country needs.

Dr Fox said:

"It will be strategic, cross-government and comprehensive, covering all areas of defence and security.

"We will make sure that the capabilities we invest in are those best placed to provide the security we need for the future.

"We will bring defence policy, plans, commitments and resources into balance, and produce over time a transformative change to British Defence."

Dr Fox said the SDSR would be carried out against the background of a 'dangerous and unpredictable' security environment and a dire financial situation, worse than had been anticipated when he was in opposition:

"I want to make sure that there are no illusions about the daunting scale of the challenge we face," Dr Fox said.

The Secretary of State then reminded his audience that the first duty of Government is to protect our way of life and provide security for our citizens.

He said:

"While many arms of Government are directed towards or contribute to this aim, it is the Armed Forces that are central to this effort.

"Of course there are many things our Armed Forces can do in the promotion of our national interest and to support Government policy more widely.

"Our Service personnel are highly committed and extremely capable with a 'can-do' attitude, and with the equipment, logistics and know-how to deal with a wide range of situations.

"We know that we can rely on them to fulfil whatever task is thrust upon them.

"That might be resilience operations here in the UK, such as helping in the aftermath of flooding; or where there is a need for military capability to assist an urgent life-saving humanitarian crisis abroad.

"But we must not lose sight of their primary mission - to maintain the capability to apply lethal force where needed so that political decision makers have the widest possible range of choices when making strategic decisions."

Dr Fox said that this primary mission had two aspects. The first of which was for the Armed Forces protect our citizens and territory by deterring and containing threats - 'preventing possibilities from becoming actualities':

"We underestimate the value of deterrence at our peril and we do ourselves a disservice if we merely confine it to the concept to nuclear weapons.

"The nuclear deterrent is of course fundamental to our ability to deter the most destructive forms of aggression.

"But we must also remember the powerful deterrent effect of our conventional forces. Recently we have perhaps failed fully to recognise this.

"I want the SDSR to change that, to take a fresh look at what we are doing to dissuade aggression, and how we might do this better."

The second core mission for Defence, said Dr Fox, is for it to also be there for when everything goes wrong, 'when deterrence and containment have failed, when diplomacy is exhausted, and as a last resort, the use of lethal force is required':

"No other arm of Government can deliver this or is designed for this purpose and it cannot be outsourced or delegated, even to our friends.

"So our Armed Forces must be structured first to deter and second to deliver the use of force in support of our national interest and to protect national security."

Dr Fox said this primary mission was currently being played out in Afghanistan and that British Forces were in the country 'out of necessity, not choice':

"Our mission in Afghanistan is vital for our national security, vital for the security of the region and vital for global stability.

"We cannot allow Afghanistan to be used again as a haven for terrorists or a launch-pad for attacks on the UK or our allies.

"So Afghanistan remains our top priority, and our people in theatre will get the best support that is possible.

"Counter-insurgency needs strategic patience, and we're committed to seeing the mission through to resolution - creating a stable enough Afghanistan to allow the Afghan people to manage their own internal and external security.

"This is no time for us to lose our nerve and we must find the language to persuade the British people to stick with us."

He said he expected significant progress by the end of the year, consolidating ISAF's hold in central Helmand and accelerating the training of the Afghan National Security Forces.

He added:

"There is no absolutely reason why any NATO country cannot do more for the training mission - it is a measure of our commitment and resolve as an Alliance - and it is the route to bringing our troops home without leaving a security vacuum behind."

Acknowledging that conducting a defence and security review while the country is engaged in war is not ideal, Dr Fox said that after 12 years a review was something the country could not afford to delay:

"Change is not an option, it is a necessity," Dr Fox said.

"Even if defence spending kept pace with inflation, we face a deficit of many billions of pounds over this life of this parliament and more over the next decade."

Dr Fox said that reductions in administration costs and increases in efficiency would not be enough on their own:

"The problem is structural so the response must be structural to put Defence on a stable footing.

"The MOD itself must face reform.

"We intend to reorganise the whole organisation into three pillars- first Strategy and Policy, second Armed Forces and Procurement and third Estates.

"We intend to create a more efficient and leaner centre where everyone knows what they are responsible for and who they are accountable to - with the deadlines and budgetary disciplines taken for granted elsewhere.

"Major reform of our procurement practices will be accompanied by a number of industrial consultations that I will outline shortly to Parliament.

"But as much as structural reform is required, I am equally determined that the Armed Forces are re-configured to meet the needs of the evolving security environment and satisfy the ambitions this country has.

"We do have to operate in the financial climate we have inherited and Defence cannot be immune from that challenge.

"We will have to be tough and unsentimental to boot if we are to do what needs to be done.

"But while the SDSR may be resource-informed, it is policy-led."

On the strategic environment facing defence Dr Fox said that the new Government's foreign policy would pusue the defence of UK interests with the recognition that our prosperity and security is bound up with those of others:

"This will require the enhancement of diplomatic relations with key partners, using Britain's unique network of friendships, bonds and alliances, working bilaterally as well as multilaterally," Dr Fox said.

"We will need to be smarter about when and how we deploy power, which tasks we can do in alliance with others, and what capabilities we will need as a result.

"In the final analysis we will need to retain the capacity to deploy military strength in defence of our own national interests."

Dr Fox said listed several of the possible security challenges the country could face over the coming decades.

These included:

State failure such as we have seen in Afghanistan and Somalia, creating new focal points for exportable Islamist terrorism that threatens our citizens and our allies;

A nuclear capable or nuclear armed Iran, destabilising Shia-Sunni and Arab-Persian fault lines, as well as those with Israel and the rest of the world;

The emergence of old or new regional powers, and the return of state-versus-state competition and confrontation;

And more immediately, competition for energy and other resources (including fresh water) could take on a military nature.

"That is the reality of the world in which we live and we must break away from the recent habit of planning for the best case scenario and then hoping the worst never happens," Dr Fox said.

"Unlike the Cold War, we cannot be confident about how, and how quickly, these trends might evolve.

"I shall therefore be conducting a thorough stock take of our contingency plans in the months ahead."

The Secretary of State for Defence said that responding to such events would not be for Britain alone and that Britain's relationship with the United States will remain critical for our security.

He also said NATO will remain our first instrument of choice for responding to the collective security challenges we face and increased coopertion and with other nations would be required, therefore he intends to treat, and consequently fund, a Defence Diplomacy programme separately within the SDSR.

Concluding, Dr Fox said that the SDSR will be a major reform agenda - 'informed by the pressure on resources but driven by the changing world in which we live and the nature of the threats we face'.

He said:

"Let me reassure you that the SDSR will be strategic, cross-Government, and a comprehensive exercise overseen by the newly formed National Security Council, to provide a coherent approach to security, and informed by a new National Security Strategy."

He said that there are competing priorities, risks to manage and budgets to balance but 'we must act ruthlessly and without sentiment':

"It is inevitable that there will be the perception of winners and losers as we go through this process. But Defence as a whole must come out in a stronger position."

Dr Fox said that the conclusions of the review would be published in a white paper by the end of the year.

[buglerbilly]

Budget Provisions Welcomed by UK High-Technology Manufacturing Sectors

(Source: ADS; issued June 22, 2010)

A|D|S, the UK’s AeroSpace, Defence and Security trade organisation today (Tuesday) commented on the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Budget statement to the House of Commons.

Derek Marshall, A|D|S Director of Policy, said:

“We welcome the Government’s focus on rebalancing the economy and seeking an enterprise-led recovery across the country. Our world-leading manufacturing and services sectors are spread across the whole of the UK and have room for growth in export markets that will deliver for the whole country on this crucial priority for the Government.

“The UK is number one in Europe and second only to the US globally in aerospace and defence. UK aerospace has a 17 per cent global market share and Britain has a 21 per cent global share of the defence exports market while the space and security sectors great potential for future growth towards similar market shares. This is a foundation of success on which the country can build. We look forward to working with the Government to deliver for Britain’s economic recovery.”

On the green investment bank and investment in clean, green technologies Mr Marshall said:

“Delivering a lower carbon future is crucial for the sustainability of our environment and our economy. The UK aerospace industry will be a crucial partner for the Government in this aim. The wider UK aviation industry has a publicly available roadmap in place to meet the predicted threefold rise in passenger demand to 2050 while using new technologies, fuels and systems to simultaneously reduce carbon dioxide emissions back to 2000 levels. We therefore look forward to the participation of the UK aerospace industry in the work of the green investment bank proposed by the Chancellor.”

On capital spending projects and defence investment Mr Marshall continued:

“The Government is right to maintain capital spending and to view this through the prism of significant economic return to the country. This is particularly applicable to defence spending because £100 million spent on defence delivers a return of £227 million to the UK economy. Defence employs 300,000 people across all regions of the country and contributes over £35 billion per year to the UK economy. Given the Chancellor’s recognition of the pressure on the defence budget and also the fact that defence spending has halved as a proportion of GDP over the last twenty years we look forward to the Government confirming through the Strategic Defence and Security Review that further reductions in the defence budget will not be made.”

On support to businesses, manufacturing and small firms Mr Marshall added:

“It is encouraging to hear the Chancellor’s commitment to research and development, stability and certainty for business. The long-term nature of the sectors that we represent means that this is a vital climate in which to encourage investment in the UK by both multinational and domestic companies.

“Reductions in the corporation tax rate and the small businesses rate are welcome. A commitment to reducing the overall tax paid by manufacturers is also good news and will assist our members to further contribute to the UK’s economic recovery. The contribution of small businesses to the UK’s success in aerospace, defence, security and space cannot be underestimated. For example, in defence alone the UK has more SMEs than France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Norway combined. Small firms underpin our country’s innovation and our participation in supply chains for programmes across the globe. The assistance announced to enable them to access credit is good news but reducing the rates of capital allowances offsets the benefits somewhat.”

On support for local and regional economic growth Mr Marshall said:

“Our sectors have a presence across every region of the UK and our members make a major contribution to all our regional economies. The Chancellor’s proposals for a regional growth fund to increase innovation and jobs outside London, the South East and the Eastern region are welcome but close attention will need to be paid to ensure that this support does not disadvantage sub-regional areas in the South East of England that also need development. We look forward to more details in the White Paper on encouraging local economic growth.

BACKGROUND NOTES:

-- This is a reaction to the Chancellor’s statement to the House of Commons. Further comment will follow on more detailed issues following publication and analysis of the accompanying Budget documents from the Treasury.

-- A|D|S is the trade organisation advancing UK AeroSpace, Defence and Security industries with Farnborough International Limited as a wholly-owned subsidiary. A|D|S also encompasses the British Aviation Group (BAG). It is formed from the merger of the Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers (APPSS), the Defence Manufacturers Association (DMA) and the Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC).

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

UK MoD may face 25 per cent cuts, Budget reveals

By Keri Wagstaff-Smith

24 June 2010

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) may face a budget cut of about 25 per cent over the next four years, according to Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne's Emergency Budget announcement.

Osborne has also pledged that there will be no further reductions in capital spending totals and that the "absolute priority" will be programmes that provide a "significant economic return to the country" - a statement that has been welcomed by UK aerospace defence and security body ADS.

Announcing the UK 'Emergency Budget' at the House of Commons on 22 June, Osborne said that under an identified need to make GBP6 billion (USD8.9 billion) in savings - and amid fears of sustaining sovereign debt - the UK "inherited" spending plans to cut departmental budgets across the board by GBP44 billion (USD65 billion) a year by 2014-2015. He added that this "implies an average real reduction for unprotected departments of 20 per cent".

However, there could be further reductions in departmental spending of GBP17 billion by 2014-2015 "because the structural deficit is worse than we were told [by the previous government]", said Osborne. This implies that unprotected departments, such as the MoD, will face an average real cut of about 25 per cent over four years.

203 of 667 words
Copyright © IHS (Global) Limited, 2010

[buglerbilly]

Military will be made smaller, lighter and more dependent on foreign allies, minister says

Britain’s military will be made smaller, lighter and more dependent on foreign allies as budget cuts hit defence, the Armed Forces minister said yesterday.

By Andy Bloxham and James Kirkup

Published: 7:30AM BST 08 Jul 2010

Nick Harvey, a Liberal Democrat, said that while the Forces needed to maintain the ability to “apply lethal force”, Cold War models of large standing armies were no longer relevant.

He said the military had to become more agile and adaptable; more mobile; better integrated; and better merged with “other levels of national power and influence, at home and abroad”.

Some experts and officers believe such a move threatens Britain’s independence and could leave the country unable to defend itself if forced to fight alone.

His remarks came as Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, confirmed that British troops would be redeployed from the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan.

Nick Harvey, who is the MP for North Devon, made his remarks in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute think-tank, and warned: “Let me be quite clear: change is coming.”

He said the Forces would “have less emphasis on weight and more accuracy of firepower”.

“They will need to be less focused on scale when contributing to multinational operations, with the emphasis moving to quality.

“And we should have less duplication of capabilities held in large numbers by our NATO allies.”

He did not give details about greater co-operation with allies, but ministers are known to be exploring ways to work together more closely with France, the only other major European military power.

There is even speculation in Paris that the UK might offer to share one of the two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers the MoD is planning to buy.

Mr Harvey warned that the minimum Trident nuclear deterrent would be maintained but said the number of submarines, missiles and warheads might be cut.

Speaking to the RUSI conference on the Royal Navy, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope called for closer integration of the UK’s sea, air and land forces as well as better partnership with allied navies, in particular those of the US and France.

“Defence is a team game and we need to think in those terms when we consider maritime capabilities, how we develop them, and indeed how we use them in the future,” he said.

“We also need to pursue enhanced inter-operability with allies and partners, particularly with the United States and also with France and many other maritime forces with whom we operate and exercise regularly.”

He highlighted statistics showing that 80% of the world's capitals are within 150 miles of the coast and that by 2030 65% of the world's population - some 6 billion people - will live in this area.

The speeches are unlikely to be well received by senior members of the Navy: a number of admirals are understood to have written to the First Sea Lord in recent weeks to beg for more frigates to be commissioned.

Defence experts believe the Navy will never again engage in conflict alone but will have to rely on other nations for military assistance.

Lt Gen David Leakey, the former director general of the EU’s military staff, said: “We won’t ever be operating in a national sovereign capacity. We will always be doing it in a multi-lateral capacity.”

[buglerbilly]

Liam Fox: cuts could play 'fast and loose' with national security

George Osborne has been warned not to play ‘fast and loose’ with national security by including Britain’s nuclear deterrent in his programme of public sector spending cuts.

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent

Published: 4:08PM BST 18 Jul 2010


Liam Fox says Trident must be fully funded Photo: CHRISTOPHER PLEDGER

Speaking as negotiations are under way ahead of austerity measures which will see Whitehall budgets shrink by up to 40 per cent, Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said that the Trident nuclear system must not be compromised.

Amid reports of tension between Dr Fox and the Treasury, he confirmed the Chancellor had asked him to discuss whether the Ministry of Defence could for the first time absorb the full cost of Trident’s renewal programme.

While the MoD currently pays for the submarine-based deterrent’s running costs, capital expenditure on the system has traditionally been funded from central finds.

Dr Fox admitted that arrangement was under review, and, in words which will be interpreted as firing a warning shot to the Chancellor, added: “To take the capital cost would make it very difficult to maintain what we’re currently doing in terms of capability.

“We have to ensure we have the precautions to protect Britain from nuclear blackmail by any other state.”

With the MoD already braced for cuts of at least 10 per cent, Dr Fox said that the burden of funding Trident would place enormous extra pressure on other resources.

He went on to imply that if it was saddled with the full cost, the MoD might have to scale down the Trident replacement system.

Mr Osborne is said to believe that Britain’s nuclear deterrent should be considered as part of the security apparatus, and that it is therefore illogical for Trident not to be funded from the same budget as the rest of the military.

Asked about reports that he had threatened to quit if Trident was not replaced, Dr Fox told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: "We really can't play fast and loose with the country's defence.

"There has always been an understanding that the budget for the nuclear deterrent came from outside the core defence budget. Running costs for the deterrent have always come from inside.

"We don't know what the threats will be between now and 2050 – no one could have predicted 40 years ago what the world would look like today.

“Remember, when people talk about £17 to 20 billion pounds for the capital costs of Trident, they’re talking about a system that will be there till 2050 or beyond to protect us from the threat of nuclear blackmail.

“So we have to ensure we have the precautions to protect Britain from nuclear blackmail by any other state.”

Asked if the consequences for Trident and other defence spending would be "grave", he said: "I think you can leave that to me and the Chancellor to have a discussion about.

“It is a very important issue in terms of the defence review and the ultimate defence settlement. The capital costs for Trident are not particularly high in the early years but they mount up in the later years of this decade."

Dr Fox said that he thought that efficiencies could be found within the replacement programme, although he has previously said that he would be reluctant to see the number of submarines reduced from four to three.

Opposition politicians warned about potential impact on the military and ship building industry of scaling back the budgets for Trident or the MoD.

Angus Robertson, leader of the Scottish National Party at the Westminster Parliament, said: “Nobody doubts that difficult decisions have to be made under the strategic defence review but it would totally disgraceful if any Scottish infantry unit was cut – especially if the decision to waste billions on weapons of mass destruction went ahead.”

John Woodcock, Labour MP for Barrow and Furness, where the submarines would be built, added: "It is alarming that George Osborne is intent on ditching the commitment to proper funding for renewing our deterrent made by the last Labour government.

"The new Chancellor seems intoxicated by his new power to threaten colleagues with unrealistic and unwise spending contractions.

"He had better grow out of this soon or he will do lasting damage to our national security and the drivers of future economic growth."

[buglerbilly]

Britain no longer has the cash to defend itself from every threat, says Liam Fox

Britain cannot afford to protect itself against all potential threats to its security, Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, has warned.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent, UK Daily Telegraph

Published: 10:03PM BST 22 Jul 2010

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dr Fox said the dire state of the public finances meant the Armed Forces could no longer be equipped to cover every conceivable danger.

Since the Second World War, the nation has maintained a force that can conduct all-out warfare, counter-insurgencies such as in Afghanistan or medium scale campaigns like the Falklands or Sierra Leone.

But Dr Fox has given the strongest signal yet that it will have to give up one or more of these capabilities, which have been maintained at the same time as contributing to collective security pacts such as Nato. “We don’t have the money as a country to protect ourselves against every potential future threat,” he said. “We just don’t have it.”

The military had to be configured only for “realistic potential future threats”, he said, hinting at a substantial cut to conventional forces such as tanks and fighter aircraft.

“We have to look at where we think the real risks will come from, where the real threats will come from and we need to deal with that accordingly. The Russians are not going to come over the European plain any day soon,” he added.

Dr Fox’s frank admission also casts doubt on the future of the 25,000 troops currently stationed in Germany. The Defence Secretary has previously said that he hoped to withdraw them at some point, leaving Britain without a presence in the country for the first time since 1945.

“I would say, what do Challenger tanks in Germany and the costs of maintaining them and the personnel required to train for them, what does that contribute to what’s happening in Afghanistan?” he asked.

The Ministry of Defence is facing a substantial squeeze on resources, with indications that 30,000 servicemen may be sacrificed to meet the Government’s stringent review of departmental budgets.

Dr Fox signalled in a speech at Farnborough air show this week that Britain’s fleets of warships, fighters and armoured vehicles would be reduced because the MoD’s equipment programme was “entirely unaffordable”.

A National Audit Office report on Tuesday also found that the MoD was already £500 million over budget for the current financial year with “insufficient funds to meet planned expenditure”.

There has been growing speculation that the Army could be reduced by a quarter of its strength to 75,000 under the defence review.

But Dr Fox insisted that no troops would be made redundant until the fighting in Afghanistan was over.

“Everything that we might want to do with the Army will be constrained by what’s happening in Afghanistan,” he said.

“Any changes will have to be phased in. But with the Army in particular the difficulties come with how stretched we currently are providing forces in Afghanistan.”

He added: “I did not come into politics to see reductions in the Armed Forces but I also did not come into politics to see the destruction of the economy.”

He described as “nonsense” the idea that the Ministry of Defence would sacrifice personnel before equipment to make savings to a budget shortfall estimated at £36 billion over the next decade.

“I am not planning for any particular size for the Army,” Dr Fox said. “This idea that we are coming at the review with a particular size for the Army or the Navy or the Air Force is nonsense.”

In the last week Dr Fox has been fighting the Treasury to ensure that cash for the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent comes from outside the MoD’s core budget.

Asked if he would be prepared to resign if he did not get what he wanted, he said: “I am in the middle of complex negotiations and I am not in the business of megaphone diplomacy with the Treasury.

“The country is in an economic crisis, defence cannot be exempted from it.”

Despite the likelihood of a 20 per cent cut to the MoD’s £37 billion annual budget, he insisted that Britain would remain in the “first division” of armed forces alongside America.

“We have to keep sufficient land forces to hold territory if required, we have got to maintain enough maritime power and we have got to maintain air power to maintain air superiority.”

Dr Fox hopes that substantial savings can be found by renegotiating defence contracts. Companies supplying the MoD have been threatened with the loss of lucrative orders unless they lower prices.

“Either companies reduce the costs or we cancel whole projects,” he said. “Either we cut costs or cut programmes. The defence industry will understand that helping us over the short term will give them greater security over the longer term.”

It has been suggested that the Defence Secretary favours the Navy above the other two Services.

But Dr Fox criticised the fleet’s obsession with hi-tech ships such as the Type 45 destroyer, described by BAe Systems, its makers, as the most advanced warship of its kind, or Astute submarines.

“If I had a criticism of the Navy it is that it’s been too centred on a high specification end and not had sufficient platform numbers (ships) in a world that requires presence,” he explained.

He also questioned the number of different transport aircraft required by the RAF. It has a fleet of 36 Hercules, planes, seven C17 Globemasters and about 22 A400M transporters on order.

“Do we have to have all these different fleets or can we reduce them down?” Dr Fox asked.

“Fewer types means less training and fewer spare parts.” He admitted that for a political “hawk” the prospect of reducing the Forces was difficult.

“It is very difficult for someone like me who is a fiscal hawk and hawkish on defence policy to arrive here at a time when the previous government have bankrupted us,” Dr Fox said. “It is really difficult and we will have to make really hard choices.

“Labour have left us with such a car crash that next year the interest on the national debt will be nearly one and half times the defence budget. That is not sustainable.”

[buglerbilly]

Strategic Financial Management of the Defence Budget

(Source: UK National Audit Office; issued July 21, 2010)

The Ministry of Defence does not place sufficient emphasis on financial management in its decision making, according to a report released today by the National Audit Office.

Annual financial plans at the MOD have been over-committed. By the end of July 2009, the budget for the Department was exceeded by its forecast for the rest of that year by £700 million. When the assumptions underlying the plan for 2010-11 were reassessed, the forecast deficit grew from £185 million to over £500 million.

While not all of the factors that have led to the Department’s plans being over-committed are of its own making (defence cost inflation is higher than in the domestic economy and the long-term and relatively inflexible nature of defence projects), the Department is able to make choices in setting its budgets and priorities and could use financial management more effectively to address those factors which are within its control.

The shortfalls in financial management have significant consequences. The over-commitment in future spending plans has led to additional savings being necessary. During 2009-10, the Department had to find additional savings of £800 million to bring its planned expenditure back into line with its budgets. Finding these reductions mid-year is a time-consuming and destabilising exercise. Many areas have to revisit or adjust their plans leading to delays, material changes to project specifications and costly renegotiation of contracts with industry. Delaying projects also leads to significant increases in the project cost.

In May 2010, the Government announced a Strategic Defence and Security Review. This Review will provide an opportunity for the Department to rebalance its future spending plans in the short term. Over the longer term, however, the challenge for the MOD will be to ensure that these plans remain in balance.

The finance function at the MOD does not have as central role in strategic planning as it should have. Financial management does not have a high enough priority to counter the Department’s tendency to make over-commitments in its strategic planning. The Department has work underway that should make its financial planning more effective, but it also needs to demonstrate that it has the will to use the tools it already possesses.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said today:

"A crucial question for the Ministry of Defence is whether it can use strategic financial management to stop living beyond its means. The current Strategic Defence and Security Review will provide an opportunity for the MOD to balance its books in the short-term. The greater challenge will be to keep spending plans affordable in the longer term. The Department is not at present placing enough emphasis on financial management to be able to do this."

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Amyas Morse, is the head of the National Audit Office which employs some 900 staff. He and the NAO are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies; and he has statutory authority to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies have used their resources.

Click here for the full report (35 pages in PDF format) on the NAO website.

http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=3c40e467-0cfc-4a94-94ab-0074f082a97d&version=-1

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Interview - Liam Fox

Secretary of State for Defence, United Kingdom

Published: 26 July 2010 Print | EmailLiam Fox stepped into a tough spot when he took the U.K. government's top defense job in May. While it had been apparent for years that Britain's procurement plans were quite at odds with funding realities, the tough choices had been put off. Now, with a new coalition government having taken over from the ousted Labour Party rule, Fox is slated to oversee the country's most far-reaching defense and security review in more than a decade. Its goals are nearly mutually exclusive: reduce spending, preserve military power and protect vital industrial capabilities.

Due in October - virtually record time - to help shape the government's overall budget, the review is expected to call for deep cuts in programs and manpower alike.

At the Farnborough International Air Show, Fox met with industry leaders to underline his goals and issued a call for companies to cut their price tags.

Q. Why must the government budget be cut, and industry reduce its prices?

A. Well, you have to go back a step. We have a very large fiscal deficit in the United Kingdom. Unless we reduce that, we will not create the space in our economy for the wealth creators to grow and strengthen. That means that the government's first priority has to be to reduce that deficit.

Now, as that government's program of doing that, we have to review all departmental spending and bring it more into line with, frankly, what we can afford. In some departments, that may mean a 40 percent reduction in government buckets; it will mean substantially less than that, obviously, in defense, but we will have to take our share of tightening our belts if we're to get the economy into the shape that we want.

And there's an important point, strategically, about that. One of the lessons we learned from the Cold War was that it wasn't just our military, but also our economic might that helped us to come through that particular protracted conflict. We in the West need to remember that it's our economic strength that underpins everything else. If we lose that foothold, then we're in a lot of trouble.

Q. How do you get industry to reduce its prices? What sorts of reductions are you looking for from publicly traded companies that are dependent on capital markets?

A. There's a carrot-and-stick approach that I've just been outlining this morning here. What I've been saying to them is that the government will help you specifically to drive for improved exports.

We recognized that private companies want to maintain their share price, that they want to maintain their dividends, that profits are fantastic things. We can help them do that by improving Britain's share of the defense market, on behalf of those companies. We will work with them, in a program of defense diplomacy, to do all that we can.

However, there is a quid pro quo, which is that in the lean years that lie ahead, we will need to ensure that we get every help possible from industry to reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

If we work together, we can get a minimal reduction in defense capability, good value for the taxpayer, and a strong performance for the companies. It seems to me that it was quite a good deal on offer.

Q. One of your party's advisers, a former Army chief, has recommended fewer tanks, fewer fast jets, and a number of other cuts. What are the military capabilities you want to come out of the upcoming review?

A. Advisers advise, and ministers decide. We will take a wide range of advice as we come to September and October. We are fortunate to have some extremely high-powered advice coming, even from former secretaries in other political parties giving us their view on things. In Britain, it's very much a bipartisan approach in terms of defense.

What you can say for sure is a number of things. First of all, as a maritime nation, 92 percent of Britain's trade goes by sea, so we cannot ignore the Royal Navy. Perhaps there's been a tendency in the recent past to emphasize the high-spec end rather than platform numbers; that will be one of the things we look at.

We also need to be very aware that history teaches us that we can't predict the future nature of conflict. That means that we must retain flexible, generic capability, able to adapt to the sorts of changes in the nature of conflict that we might have.

Ultimately, politicians have to take some risk because we can't afford to cover every option. The art, I think, lies in being able to see where risks really lie, and where perhaps there is too much legacy cost for the risks that came from the Cold War.

Q. The last defense review took 18 months; you're adding security to it and taking five months. What do you say to people who say this is more of a spending thing than a strategic review?

A. If you talk to industry, they will tell you that because we have not had a review since 1998, and because it's so overdue, that the period of uncertainty has been too prolonged. We're very sensitive to the fact that we want to bring a sense of stability, or what I would call the management of unpredictability, to the defense industry.

We also need, as part of the defense consolidation, to bring our spending under control quickly. Frankly, if we spent three times as long doing a review, knowing the facts that we have all known for some time, I doubt it would be three times as wise.

Q. The last government put together a defense industrial strategy that tried to balance buying arms on the open market and protecting a select group of capabilities. Yet defense-industrial strategy is not part of the upcoming review. Why not?

A. The process that we are going through at the present time, where we are going through the Defense and Security Review and an overhaul of the Ministry of Defence itself - how it operates, how we carry out procurement - to be frank, is quite sufficient work for the present.

We have always envisaged that when we know what the defense capabilities that we required would be, that would be an appropriate time to talk to industry about the next round of defense industrial strategy.

This one will have two particular areas that we focus on. One will be looking at Britain's sovereign capability: What do we absolutely have to retain in terms of skills in the U.K., to give ourselves the operating capability that we want; and what would we like to retain if we had enough money, and what can we simply buy on the open market?

The second part is about our small and medium-sized businesses in the U.K. Do we have suitable fiscal framework, regulatory framework? Are we using research budgets adequately? How might we best retain some of the IPR [intellectual property rights] that we have in the United Kingdom? These are the sorts of areas that we look at. I see the small businesses in the U.K.'s defense sector, of which there are very many - they are the cutting edge. They are the engine of innovation, and we have to ensure that we have them in as healthy a state as possible as the government brings down the fiscal deficit.

Q. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is trying to cut spending by about 2 to 3 percent a year; you're shooting to reduce MoD running costs by 20 percent. How will you do that?

A. We actually want to reorganize the entire organization.

Effectively, we want to ensure that we can move seamlessly from foreign policy to defense strategy to portfolio management to capability-gap identification to equipment programs to physical procurement.

To that end, I intend to reorganize the Ministry of Defence into three broad pillars, the first being policy and strategy, the second being the armed forces, the third being procurement and estates, so that we can make those decisions in a much more logical way than we've done in the past.

Too much gold-plating in the past - I've discussed this with Secretary Gates, and I know it's not entirely unknown on the other side of the Atlantic. We're spending too much money on that last little bit of capability. We need to ensure that our process does not have interference and re-interference and re-re-interference as we go through programs, because, as Secretary Gates says, it's far better for the military to get 80 percent of what we want when we need it than 100 percent far too late.

Q. Britain and the United States remain the closest of allies. Should that relationship grow to include France and Europe?

A. The trans-Atlantic relationship is the key strategic relationship for the United Kingdom. NATO, which gives effect to that, has been and will continue to be the cornerstone for both our countries. But in an ever more complex world, we will have to find the levers with which to deal with potential threats to our national interests in different ways.

Q. Will you champion the U.K.-U.S. defense trade treaty that awaits ratification by the U.S. Senate?

A. It's a great pity that we now have the third prime minister in a row having to ask the United States to ratify a treaty that we ratified three years ago.

Remember, the basis of this cooperation was the recognition by President [George W.] Bush that the United Kingdom stood with the United States in Iraq. Really, having it held up for this length of time in the U.S. Congress is utterly unacceptable. Those of us who have gone out of our way to champion the Anglo-American relationship are being made to look a bit foolish by this delay. We need our friends to deliver for us. Ë

Defense profile

■ Budget (2010-11): 36.9 billion pounds ($56.8 billion)

■ Manpower: 188,000

■ Major planned purchases: A400M airlifter, F-35 strike fighter, Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, nuclear missile submarines, ASCOD SV armored scout vehicles

Source: U.K. MoD, Defense News research

---

By Vago Muradian in Farnborough, England.

[buglerbilly]

George Osborne: Trident is not exempt from budget cuts

George Osborne has stoked a Cabinet row over funding for the Trident weapons system by insisting that Britain’s nuclear defence was not exempt from budget cuts.

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent, in Dehli

Published: 1:14PM BST 29 Jul 2010



It would cost £20 billion to build four new submarines to be armed with Trident missiles Photo: Royal Navy He was speaking two weeks after Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, warned the Chancellor not to play “fast and loose” with Britain’s defence.

The Conservative Cabinet colleagues are in dispute over whether funding for the updates due to be carried out to Trident should come from the main Ministry of Defence budget or separate funds.

While the MoD has always been responsible for the running cost of Trident, it considers that the capital costs should be borne by central government.

With Mr Osborne seeking cuts of up to 25 per cent across Whitehall as part of the austerity drive he is imposing to tackle the deficit, taking on the £20 billion cost of building four new submarines to bear Trident would require a severe reduction in the rest of the MoD budget.

But speaking to Bloomberg News during a trade mission to India, the Chancellor insisted that Trident had to be considered as part of the MoD’s core funding.

He said: “The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defence budget.”

In words which are likely to infuriate Dr Fox, he added: “All budgets have pressure. I don’t think there’s anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence.

“I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget.”

In an interview earlier this month, Dr Fox had insisted that as the MoD was responsible for the defence of the realm, it was a special case and should be shielded from the cuts programme.

He warned that if Trident was considered core funding, there would have to be severe restrictions in the way that Britain operated militarily, amid suggestions that regiments could be axed, or, potentially, the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy amalgamated.

Dr Fox said: "To take the capital cost would make it very difficult to maintain what we are currently doing in terms of capability.

"We have to ensure we have the precautions to protect Britain from nuclear blackmail by any other state. We really can't afford to play fast and loose with defence."

[buglerbilly]

Having to pay for Trident is the Ministry of Defence's worst nightmare

There is no way the Defence budget can cover all our current commitments, argues Gen Sir Richard Dannatt.

By Gen Sir Richard Dannatt

Published: 7:00PM BST 31 Jul 2010



High priority: The first immovable object around which Dr Fox must run is the need to get Afghanistan right Photo: PA Two events at the end of last week painfully illustrate the circle that Liam Fox must try to square in the coming weeks, as he wrestles with the Defence budget. With British troops engaged in another offensive in Helmand, and the Chancellor’s announcement that the Ministry of Defence, not the Treasury, must find a way to pay for a replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent, it is no wonder that senior MoD officials are working six days a week.

Defying the traditional August lull in Government activity, Dr Fox and his team are committed to navigating their way around a series of immovable objects to reach the twin objectives of a defence policy that will meet Britain’s strategic needs, and a defence programme that is affordable. But where to begin?

Any respectable defence and security review must be led by policy, and start with a clear analysis of the character and nature of future conflict. This, if carried out honestly, will identify the future threats to our security. It must also be set against our national ambition, which, as David Cameron has made quite clear in Turkey and India this week, remains active and outward-looking.

The first immovable object around which Dr Fox must run is the need to get Afghanistan right. As disappointing as it is for some to accept, funding our Land Forces who are doing the heavy lifting in Helmand – the Royal Marines, the Army and the helicopter and transport parts of the Royal Air Force – must be the highest priority.

However, today’s highest priority may not always remain so. If we move to a system of having defence reviews every four of five years, by statute, then our priorities can be reviewed and our programmes adjusted as changing circumstances dictate. If our aspiration is to stabilise Afghanistan sufficiently so that our troops can come home by 2015, then at that point our Land Forces might no longer be the highest priority.

The second immovable object is the news that the MoD least wanted to hear – that the cost of replacing Trident must be found from within the Defence budget, and not from some special Treasury fund. This decision, if confirmed by David Cameron, is a most definite game-changer. There is no way the current defence programme can be manipulated not only to fund operations in Afghanistan, and to recover from the £35 billion overspend inherited from the previous Government, but also a Trident replacement, the aircraft carrier programme and our acquisition and operation of a host of fast jets.

This is where the bold decision-taking has to cut in. Of course the RAF must have the most capable aircraft available to protect our skies, meaning that we need enough of the latest batch of Typhoon aircraft to do this. But we cannot also afford to keep the ageing Tornadoes and the historic Harriers, of Falklands fame.

This dose of reality impacts on the aircraft carrier programme, too. At £4 billion, the two ships are not actually that expensive – but at £10 billion, the Joint Strike Fighters intended to fly off them most certainly are. This brings the whole project into doubt, and two related questions into focus. Those are: how does the Royal Navy best protect our trade routes and shipping – a lifeline on which our island nation still depends – and how is air power to be provided in support of our land forces?

The answers lie with more and smaller ships to secure the sea lanes, and land-based planes whose range is enhanced by a renegotiated air-to-air refuelling programme. And in case anyone thinks that this retired general is wearing khaki-coloured spectacles, the Army needs to reduce immediately its holdings of main battle tanks and heavy artillery, and its presence in Germany.

Mr Osborne changed the game on Friday. The unthinkable can only become thinkable via the strict application of priorities, and a consensus on what is genuinely in the national interest. Vested interests and cherished projects are burdens we can no longer afford.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt is a former Chief of the General Staff

[Zen9]

We won’t ever be operating in a national sovereign capacity. We will always be doing it in a multi-lateral capacity

This little statement is virtualy treason, but its consistent with the LibDem's attitude over the EU.

Osborn has I suspect played a very underhand move. My understanding was that the Deterrent had a funding line in the budget, accruing finance since the purchase of Trident. So this is probably sign of one of two things, either Osborn has raided that line, or Brown did years ago and no one noticed.


The first immovable object around which Dr Fox must run is the need to get Afghanistan right. As disappointing as it is for some to accept, funding our Land Forces who are doing the heavy lifting in Helmand – the Royal Marines, the Army and the helicopter and transport parts of the Royal Air Force – must be the highest priority.
Nope, DoTR rules, 60 million outnumber everyone in Afghanistan. Hard and cruel as that may sound, the adventure of Afghanistan is a sideshow however bloody and costly it may seem.


We in the West need to remember that it's our economic strength that underpins everything else. If we lose that foothold, then we're in a lot of trouble.
Hard to trade if your shipping is stolen or sunk. A good historian would remember we invented the National Debt to fund a RN able to protect our trade. Its not quite the simple system he suggests, that defence is some sort of 'add on' to an economy. Hardpower underpins and is the foundation of softpower.

Since MoD budget is running at less than 2.5% of GDP, I would say we're at a historic low for modern times. It ought to have been raised to 5% in the buildup to Iraq and Afghanistan, and even 3% would have kept things ruinning a lot more smoothly.
Our 'peace dividend' has cost us coffins and tears. Cut out more dividend and we will have more coffins and more tears.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

UK Defense - Weekend Speculation Update

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 8/2/2010 5:28 AM CDT

UK newspapers are continuing to report alleged leaks from the current defense review, which continues under a tight security seal. Caveat to the following: Anything that follows could be a targeted leak.

The Daily Telegraph reports a potentially momentous change: the UK nuclear deterrent budget, long separately funded at a national level, has been handed back to the Ministry of Defence by the Treasury.

The change is crucial not only because of the review, but because spending on a replacement for the Trident submarine fleet is due to start imminently. The Royal Navy wants to avoid the problems that it encountered trying to build the Astute class of hunter-killer submarines, which followed a gap in nuclear-sub construction, by keeping the specialized engineering and building workforce active. The Trident-replacement program is also being synchronized with the US Navy's replacement for the Ohio-class submarines.

The previous government reviewed its nuclear deterrence options and decided to stick with submarine launched US missiles with UK-developed warheads - adopted as the primary deterrent force in the early 1960s and now the only UK nuclear capability. But would other options (such as a nuclear-tipped version of Storm Shadow) look more attractive if deterrence is competing for funds with Typhoons, Chinooks, trucks and boots?

Meanwhile, sources have told the Sunday Times that the RN is looking at the possibility of pulling out of the Joint Strike Fighter program and acquiring Boeing Super Hornets instead for its two new aircraft carriers. Again, this is a drastic move - but, formally, the MoD has not yet decided whether the new carriers will be designed for catapults or for STOVL aircraft, and indeed issued a contract to Converteam UK in July to continue work on an electromagnetic aircraft launch system.

Presumably, UK thinking is linked to the high cost of JSF - at least, as predicted by Pentagon auditors - compared with the fixed price and capability offered by Boeing.

Given that other reports have suggested that at least one of the carriers is a potential target in the current review, and that the carrier's air wing is going to cost a lot more than the ships, the Admiralty may be offering a deal: If we take the Super Hornet, can we use the savings to build both carriers?

The latest report goes a long way to explaining why Boeing chose Farnborough to unveil its newest Super Hornet proposal. However, some commenters on UK-based message boards are also hinting that the leak could be part of a UK campaign to pressure the US to ratify the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty, now stalled in the Senate. Together with a similar treaty with Australia, it's intended to resolve long-standing technology transfer issues with JSF and other programs.

[buglerbilly]

RAF to shrink to World War One levels

The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defence.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent, UK Daily Telegraph

Published: 10:22PM BST 06 Aug 2010



The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defence. Photo: EPA In the most significant changes to Britain’s defences since the post-Suez review of 1957, ministers and officials plan to scrap large parts of the Armed Forces.

The Services will lose up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, scores of fighter jets and half a dozen ships, under detailed proposals passed to The Daily Telegraph.

But the RAF will bear the brunt of the planned cuts. The Air Force will lose 7,000 airmen – almost one sixth of its total staff – and 295 aircraft. The cuts will leave the Force with fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914. In addition, the Navy will lose two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers, along with 2,000 sailors and marines.

The Army faces a 40 per cent cut to its fleet of 9,700 armoured vehicles and the loss of a 5,000-strong brigade of troops.

The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole” in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72  billion over the next decade – double the amount previously suggested.

While the Strategic Defence and Security Review is yet to be finalised, officials have drawn up a series of likely options to meet cuts of 10 to 20 per cent demanded by the Treasury.

By the end of this month the Defence Strategy Group, comprising ministers and military chiefs, will be presented with a number of recommendations that they will refine and pass to the National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, in September.

In October, after agreement with the Treasury, an announcement will be made in Parliament on precisely what cuts the Forces face as part of the comprehensive spending review of Whitehall budgets.

If implemented, the cuts will mean that Britain will almost certainly depart the world stage as a major military power and become what military chiefs call a “medium-scale player”.

The proposed cuts – which are certain to face a critical reception from the public – are being considered without resolving the question of who pays for the Trident replacement. The MoD hopes that once voters realise the scale of the cuts to the Armed Forces, George Osborne, the Chancellor, may spare some parts of the military. The plans will lead to the RAF losing its status as the fifth biggest air force in the world.

The entire force of 120 GR4 Tornado fighter-bombers looks destined for the scrap heap to save £7.5 billion over the next five years. The Tornado was supposed to be in service until 2025, but with a major overhaul due in the next five years costing £10 million for each aircraft, it is now under threat.

The cut will mean job losses as RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Marham totalling almost 5,000 personnel.

Under the plans, the number of Eurofighter Typhoons is likely to be reduced further from 160 to 107 planes based at a single RAF airfield to save £1  billion. The entire fleet of 36 Hercules transport aircraft, the workhorse in Iraq and Afghanistan, is to be phased out and replaced by an order of 22 new A400M planes.

The £3.6 billion project for nine Nimrod MR4 reconnaissance aircraft is also vulnerable, along with a number of other surveillance planes.

The proposals include a swathe of cuts to the Army’s armoured regiments with the loss of Challenger 2 tanks, AS90 guns and Warrior armoured vehicles.

While the Army is likely to lose a few thousand soldiers in the coming year, reducing its numbers to about 100,000, it is braced to lose an entire brigade of about 5,000 when combat troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 2015. It is understood that 7 Armoured Brigade or 20 Armoured Brigade, both based in Germany, are the most vulnerable.

Infantry battalions will be increased from about 600 troops to 750 as a lesson from Afghanistan has been the loss of combat effectiveness through leave and casualties, according to the plans.

The Royal Marines also face coming under direct Army control from Navy command and the possibility of being grouped into a “super elite” unit alongside two Parachute Regiment battalions.

A senior Whitehall source said: “These are not Tory cuts, these are Labour cuts as a result of their irresponsible overspending. However, a lot of this comes down to how much political appetite there is to do this.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”

[buglerbilly]

MoD cuts: Loss of big boys' toys will change forces forever

Dark days shroud the future of our Armed Forces – those in defence tell us.

By Thomas Harding

Published: 12:21AM BST 07 Aug 2010



Dark days shroud the future of our Armed Forces ? those in defence tell us. Photo: PA Like a catalogue shopper, for the last decade the Ministry of Defence has ticked off desired items for purchase but now that the bills are coming in we can see we cannot pay them.

The previous government left us a military debt of £72 billion – the equivalent of not paying our troops or buying equipment for the next two years. It means that from 2015, once we finish combat operations in Afghanistan, we are going to spend perhaps a decade in recovery, similar to the American recuperation post-Vietnam.

Not only are the services exhausted but so too is the Treasury’s chequebook.

So what will our Armed Forces look like post-Afghanistan? The aspiration is for a force that is leaner, more agile, savvy and better equipped to tackle tomorrow’s threats.

The sacrifice? The big boys’ toys – fast jets, tanks, all-singing and dancing warships.

Playing in the background is the risk that the way the forces are reconfigured is likely to be inadequate to fight the next war. What if we need to take large swathes of territory to secure food, water and fuel?

A “culturally aware stabilisation battalion” will be useless.

So the cobwebs will have to be blown off the tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery pieces if this unlikely but not implausible scenario emerges.

What it does mean is that the forces need to remain balanced because we do not know what the future holds.

The generals sense that the conflicts in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan signpost the future and that in a straitened economy we need to take risks.

So despite a glorious, century-long history the RAF will enter a less celebrated era.

For that, its fighter jet educated chiefs have to shoulder some blame. For far, far too long they ignored the pleas to become the workhorses of the sky, instead opting for the “exquisite” technology found in fast jets.

They therefore pay the penalty for failing to get to grips with the scandalous helicopter shortage, the ailing Tristar passenger aircraft and the overworked Hercules used to fly in troops and equipment.

What the British public has to stomach is to become a medium scale player in the bigger world.

Yes, one that could still probably do Sierra Leone or, at a push, the Falklands but a force that can never really act unilaterally again.

But for all the talk of deep cuts within defence, one has to consider a well-used MoD ploy of raising the doomsday scenario to frighten the public and force politicians to row back on the proposals.

“The whole defence review hangs on its first contact with the public,” a senior Army officer told me.

What he meant was that if people outside the defence community voice sincere fears against deep and difficult cuts then much of the plan could be discarded.

That will mean — as another defence analyst puts it — the public choosing between building another hospital or investing in a squadron of tanks.

No one as yet knows what place in the world the British public wants this country to have.

We will soon find out.

[buglerbilly]

The Strategic Defence and Security Review

(Source: House of Commons Defence Committee; issued Aug 10, 2010)

CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE

To be published as HC 345-I House of Commons

Minutes of Evidence Taken Before Defence Committee: The Strategic Defence and Security Review

Wednesday 21 July 2010:

Witnesses:
-- Rt Hon Liam Fox MP, Secretary of State for Defence,
-- Mr Tom McKane, Director General for Strategy,
-- Mr Peter Watkins, Director, Operational Policy, and
-- Air Vice Marshal Andy Pulford, Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Operations),


Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 67

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1. This is a corrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.

2. The transcript is an approved formal record of these proceedings. It will be printed in due course.

Click here for the full transcript (HTML format) on the House of Commons website.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmdfence/c345-i/c34501.htm

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Lloyd's Chairman To Lead U.K. Defence Reform Unit

By ANDREW CHUTER

Published: 12 Aug 2010 09:35

Peter Levene is expected to be named Aug. 13 as the chairman of a key new unit being formed by the U.K. Ministry of Defence to come up with recommendations to restructure the department to make it more effective.

Levene is chairman of insurance specialist Lloyd's of London. His main involvement in the defense industry is as non-executive chairman at General Dynamics UK.

The one-time Ministry of Defence procurement chief will head a panel of leading businessmen and others in an organization known as the Defence Reform Unit.

The new Conservative-led coalition government has created the new unit to advise on the structural and organizational reforms required as part of the sweeping changes expected to hit the MoD after an upcoming strategic defense and security review and budgets cuts of between 10 percent and 20 percent over the next four years.

Recommendations on defense acquisition reform will be among the key issues the reform unit is expected to advise on.

An MoD spokeswoman said she could not confirm Levene's appointment.

Levene has held numerous posts in business, government and the banking sector.

He is best known in the defense sector for his role as the procurement chief at the MoD back in the 1980s when he was recruited by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1985 to shake up the way the government purchased defense equipment.

His introduction of greater competition, changes to business terms and conditions and other reforms fundamentally changed the way the government procured defense equipment.

One executive here said that despite the changes opinions are still mixed as to whether his reforms damaged the British defense industry or made it leaner and better able to compete.

Several other businessman and government representatives are expected to be named as members of the unit at a later date.

Defence secretary Liam Fox flagged his intention to form the unit not long after his appointment in May.

"The SDSR will inevitably impact on how defence is structured and organized. I intend to establish a defence reform unit to help plan and implement the changes."

"Mindful of the scale of other challenges, this work will proceed on a separate track with a view to completion by this time next year though early high level findings may have to be woven into the SDSR," he said in a statement in early June.

Giving evidence to the Parliamentary defense select committee in mid-July Fox said "Within the defence reform unit we will be seeking to bring people in who do understand fully how acquisition reform could take place. I am not going to say who these people might be, but some might be well-known to the Committee," he said.

As part of the SDSR Fox is looking to push through reforms that will see the MoD reorganized into three distinct sectors, or pillars.

Policy and strategy would be one pillar, the armed forces another and procurement and estates the third.

[buglerbilly]

Top military officers face axe to fill £37bn defence black hole

The number of senior military officers could be cut as part of efforts to rein in costs at the Ministry of Defence, Liam Fox suggested today.

Published: 10:09AM BST 13 Aug 2010 UK Daily Telegraph


Defence Minister Liam Fox Photo: EPA

The Defence Secretary said the ''ghastly truth'' was that Labour's financial mismanagement had left a £37 billion black hole in the MoD budget and drastic reform was essential.

In a speech in London, he said the department would be restructured and decentralised, with top brass given more control over running their own services.

There would also be operational changes to improve efficiency.

''We need to challenge some of the fundamental assumptions which drive force generation, such as tour lengths and intervals, taking into account the varying pressures on our personnel resulting from widely varying missions to see if we can update our practices and produce greater efficiency while implementing the military covenant,'' Dr Fox said.

''We need to review all our current practices to ensure that we are using our greatest asset - our people - to the best of our ability.''

While ruling out merging the main services, he added: ''We will also consider whether the current senior rank structure across the services is appropriate for the post-SDSR (strategic defence and security review) world.

''We cannot demand efficiency from the lower ranks while exempting those at the top.''

Dr Fox said the MoD had an ''unfunded liability'' of £37 billion over the next 10 years.

He set out plans to reorganise the department into three pillars, Policy and Strategy, the Armed Forces, and Procurement and Estates.

There would also need to be a ''cultural shift which will see a leaner and less centralised organisation combined with devolved processes which carry greater accountability and transparency''.

Dr Fox announced that a Defence Reform Unit was being set up under Lord Levene to guide the ''hard thinking'' and complement the ongoing strategic defence and security review.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Fox Plans Overhaul of UK MOD

Posted by Robert Wall at 8/13/2010 5:51 AM CDT

The U.K. defense ministry is headed for a major shake-up that goes beyond the program cuts due to be unveiled at the end of October when the Strategic Defense and Security Review is completed.

U.K. defense minister Liam Fox today unveiled a far wider reform effort, echoing what U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is trying to do in the U.S.

Fox wants to institute cultural and structural changes in MOD. One key objective is "to stop the constant over-specification and then re-specification of programs, which has led to so many cost overruns and program delays," he says.

That's a tall order and could be even harder to implement than the program cuts likely to come out of the SDSR.

Fox is putting in place a review panel to help lay out what changes need to be made. The panel has about a year to complete its work.

One step he's already presented is a plan to reorganize the MOD into three pillars, one focused on policy, the next on armed forces, and a third on procurement and estates. Fox believes that such an arrangement will allow for a more sensible way to define needs, not unlike the strategy to task approach often discussed in the U.S.

Will Fox succeed? Actually, Fox's chances of success are likely greater than Gates's. After all, Fox will not have Congress to contend with and while there may be opposition in parliament to some of the steps, the parliament does not have the clout to stifle the reform drive in the same way Congress can in the U.S.

[buglerbilly]

The last article I'll print on this............

DATE:13/08/10

SOURCE:Flight International

UK plots MoD overhaul to stop programme delays and cost overruns

By Niall O’Keeffe

The UK government has revealed plans to reorganise the Ministry of Defence.

The armed forces will also be reformed, with a view to ensuring "more efficient provision of defence capability and generation and sustainment of operations".

In an address to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors today, Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox said that there would be "a full review" of how the MoD is run, leading to structural reform and "a cultural shift".

The department is to be "reorganised into three pillars", namely: policy and strategy; the armed forces; and procurement and estates. The new three pillar structure is designed to "stop the constant over-specification and then respecification of programmes which has led to so many cost overruns and programme delays", says Fox.

The envisaged cultural shift would render the department "leaner and less centralised".

A new defence reform unit is to be established to oversee and implement the programme, and Lloyd's of London chairman Lord Peter Levene will chair a steering group of internal and external experts, to include Baroness Sheila Noakes, George Iacobescu, David Allen, Björn Conway and Raymond McKeeve. A blueprint for reform is due be completed by September 2011.

The armed forces review, meanwhile, is intended to "challenge some of the fundamental assumptions which drive force generation, such as tour lengths and intervals", says Fox, noting that it takes armed forces of over 180,000 to sustain a combat force of under 10,000 in Afghanistan.

First Sea Lord Sir Mark Stanhope, chief of the general staff Sir Peter Wall and chief of the air staff Sir Stephen Dalton will begin the forces review following delivery of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), due in October. Their work is to be completed "by the spring of 2011".

The defence reform unit will liaise with senior personnel to "find ways of devolving greater responsibility for the running of the services", says Fox, adding: "We must get away from the over centralising tendency that has become the hallmark of the MoD in recent years."

He anticipates changes to the services' senior rank structure, commenting: "We cannot demand efficiency from the lower ranks while exempting those at the top."

Estimating the unfunded liability in defence at £37 billion ($57.6 billion) over the next 10 years - £20 billion of it attributable to the equipment and support programme - Fox said that "short-term reductions" were required to "return defence to a sound footing" and that the SDSR was being faced with "unavoidably constrained finances".

Reacting to Fox's speech, the UK's Aerospace, Defence, Security and Space (ADS) trade association suggested that he should "challenge other departments to match the contribution to budget savings that defence has already made over the last two decades".

ADS chief executive Rees Ward asserts that defence spending amounts to "half the percentage of government spending and of GDP that it was 20 years ago", citing UK Treasury data. He adds that "the demands on our armed forces exceed what was originally planned within the current budget".

[buglerbilly]

Helicopters to be scrapped amid defence spending cuts

The British military helicopter fleet is facing 20 per cent cuts, it has emerged as Liam Fox announced plans to completely overhaul defence spending.

Published: 2:30PM BST 13 Aug 2010


The UK's military helicopter fleet is facing 20 per cent cuts under plans to slash defence spending. Photo: PA
9No idea why they've shown Apache, its the LAST helo to be cancelled in the UK Force!)

I could see the Puma's and Sea Kings going over the next 2-3 years. The Lynx are more problematic AND expensive...........even the Sea Kings have a problem as a bunch are involved with Rescue and the UK Govt has already put on hold their replacement the S-92. One supposes they could re-bid the contest? Being political, one could also suppose they give Agusta Westland 8-12 new Utility EH-101's for a fraction of the Lynx costs.............

The other point to note is that this could be utter BS as the MoD is bouncing all sorts of ideas around..............masking what they are ACTUALLY going to do.....

The Defence Secretary set out plans for a leaner military which he suggested could see a dramatic thinning of the top ranks and reductions in the number of civil servants.

In the hours after his speech it was announced that two more British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.

Mr Fox said the Armed Forces would have to suffer cuts as a result of a £37 million budget black hole left by the previous Government.

He expressed a desire to bring about a ''cultural shift which will see a leaner and less centralised organisation combined with devolved processes which carry greater accountability and transparency''.

Although he did not mention specific proposals, a leaked internal Ministry of Defence memo sets out demands for £3.96 billion of savings across the so-called rotary wing fleets operated by the Royal Navy, Army and RAF.

Options outlined in the document include scrapping the entire £1.7 billion fleet of 62 new Lynx Wildcats for the Navy and Army, phasing out the Navy and RAF's Sea Kings and the ''deletion'' of the RAF's Puma helicopter, according to London's Evening Standard.

Other scenarios could see numbers of Chinooks, Merlins or Apaches reduced, the Evening Standard reported.

The provision of helicopters for British forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a politically charged issue.

While in opposition, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats argued that Labour ministers were putting troops' lives at risk by failing to provide enough of the highly manoeuvrable aircraft.

The Ministry of Defence refused to comment on the report.

A spokesman said: ''The future configuration of our Armed Forces will be based on the findings of the Strategic Defence and Security Review which is under way.

''Final decisions will depend on the outcome of the SDSR and discussions with the service chiefs. Until the review concludes, speculation about its conclusion is entirely unfounded.''

The backdrop to the cuts was highlighted as it emerged that two more soldiers have been killed in the conflict against the Taliban.

The first serviceman, from 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, was injured in a helicopter incident at a patrol base in the Nahr-e Saraj district of Helmand province on Tuesday.

The second soldier, from 21 Engineer Regiment, died today after being shot in the Sangin District of Helmand. The families of both have been informed.

[buglerbilly]

Liam Fox reopens Trident budget row with George Osborne

Defence secretary says conversation about who is going to pay for replacement for nuclear weapons system is still ongoing

Matthew Taylor guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 August 2010 13.38 BST


Trident nuclear submarine HMS Vengeance at Faslane. Photograph: Murdo Macleod

The battle over who will pay for Britain's new nuclear weapons system intensified today as the defence secretary, Liam Fox, reopened his row with the Treasury.

In a move likely to anger the chancellor, George Osborne – who attempted to draw a line under the dispute last month – Fox said the conversation about who will stump up the £20bn to replace Trident "is constantly ongoing".

"Ultimately, all our defence capabilities have to be paid for," he said. "Which bits are paid, over what timescale, is part of the discussions we are having and I'm not going to entertain them in public. I have enough time entertaining them in private."

Fox's comments are part of an escalating dispute with the chancellor over who should pay for a replacement nuclear weapons system.

Last month, in a sign of the Tory leadership's growing impatience with Fox, Downing Street sources said the defence secretary had been embarking on "freelance" missions and Osborne insisted there could be no special accountancy exemptions for the defence budget.

"The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defence budget," Osborne said. "All budgets have pressure. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence."

Osborne is due to outline the tightest spending squeeze in a generation in October, and Fox made his latest comments on Trident as he set out a his vision for a restructured MoD.

Speaking at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Fox – who has just returned from his second visit to Afghanistan as defence secretary – said departmental running costs could be cut by up to 25%, adding that the department would be reorganised into three pillars: policy and strategy, the armed forces, and procurement and estates.

He said there would also need to be a "cultural shift that will see a leaner and less centralised organisation combined with devolved processes which carry greater accountability and transparency".

David Cameron also referred briefly to the armed forces' future today when spoke of "difficult decisions ahead" as he witnessed a passing-out ceremony of officer cadets.

Representing the Queen at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Surrey, the Prime Minister said that the "defence of the realm" is the Government's top priority

"First and foremost that means supporting you. People expect us to do the right thing by you," he added.

"Yes, there will be difficult decisions ahead but I will never forget that defence of the realm is the first duty of any government."

Earlier, Fox announced that a defence reform unit was being set up under Lord Levene to guide the "hard thinking" and complement the ongoing strategic defence and security review.

Levene will work with the permanent secretary, the chief of the defence staff and service chiefs to find ways of devolving greater responsibility for the running of the services themselves.

"We need to review all our current practices to ensure that we are using our greatest asset – our people – to the best of their ability," Fox said.

The defence secretary also indicated that the number of senior military officers and civil servants would be reduced to help tackle the £37bn black hole in the department's finances.

"We will ... consider whether the current senior rank structure across the services is appropriate for the post-SDSR [strategic defence and security review] world. We cannot demand efficiency from the lower ranks while exempting those at the top," he said.

The ongoing SDSR must "put the cold war to bed" and concentrate on future dangers to the UK rather than the threats of the past, he said.

In the modern world, the "moral climate" demands precision weapons and battles are increasingly waged in cyberspace and using unmanned vehicles like aerial drones, he added.

Fox said that, alongside the review, his department would be restructured and decentralised, with top brass given more control over running their own services, although he ruled out any merger of the Royal Navy, army and RAF.

The MoD faces having its £36.9bn annual budget slashed by between 10% and 20% as part of the major Whitehall funding cuts ordered by the coalition.

The strategic defence and security review is looking at all options as it assesses Britain's future defence needs, apart from the question of whether to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent, which is already a government commitment.

The results of the SDSR will be announced at the end of October.

[buglerbilly]

Nick Clegg: Troops should take priority over Trident

Deputy prime minister reveals tensions within coalition government over the nuclear weapons system

Press Association

guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 August 2010 17.00 BST



The coalition agreement committed the government to renewing Trident, but agreed that it should be scrutinised to ensure it offers value for money. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, today exposed tensions within the coalition over the £20bn replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

He said at a time of "huge pressure" on the defence budget money should be directed towards troops on the frontline in Afghanistan.

The Liberal Democrat leader, who has become the public face of the government while David Cameron is on holiday, claimed the public would find it hard to understand why money was being spent on a full replacement of the Trident system at a time of belt-tightening in Whitehall.

Clegg went into the general election opposing a like-for-like replacement of the missile system that uses four submarines to maintain a permanent capability.

Speaking at a Q&A event at the London headquarters of Microsoft, Clegg said: "My views on Trident are well known. I can't try to hide them now that I've got into a coalition government.

"I think there is huge pressure on the defence budget, I think that much is obvious, as there is on all budgets.

"It's going to be an extraordinarily difficult thing for all the armed services to get this right because of the massive amounts that are involved and the huge procurement contracts that invariably seem to go over time and over budget.

"I think the priority within the defence budget should be absolutely to make sure that our brave troops, our brave servicemen and servicewomen, particularly now on the frontline in Afghanistan, have what they need.

"I think we need to constantly ask ourselves what kind of challenges are we going to face? What kind of wars are we going to face? What kind of conflicts are we going to have to confront in the future?

"My own view is that the kind of technology and hardware that we acquired as a country in the past, in an era of cold war conflict ... the role has changed and it's changing very fast and that needs to be reflected in the kinds of things that we spend money on.

"Not to mention that fact that, of course, it's going to be difficult for someone who is going to receive less housing benefit because of the changes we are introducing to understand why, at the same time, we should spend huge, huge amounts of money in a hurry on replacing Trident in full.

"But all these things are still being discussed, all will become clear in the comprehensive spending round in October."

The coalition agreement thrashed out between his party and Cameron's Conservatives committed the government to renewing Trident, but agreed that it should be scrutinised to ensure it offers value for money.

The deal allows the Lib Dems to "continue to make the case for alternatives".

The problem of funding Trident has become more acute since the chancellor, George Osborne, indicated the cost would be covered by the defence budget rather than out of the Treasury's.

[Mercator]

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=13762

RAF 'to take brunt of cuts'
Monday, August 09, 2010

The Royal Air Force may face the heaviest cuts in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, it has been reported.

Detailed proposals seen by The Daily Telegraph call for cuts of around 16,000 personnel - including 7,000 from the Royal Air Force - as well as hundreds of jets and other aircraft and around a dozen ships from the Royal Navy

With 295 aircraft set to go, the plans would leave the UK with under 200 fighters, and would cost the RAF its position as the world's fifth biggest air force.

The cuts would include previously leaked plans to scrap all 120 GR4 Tornado jets, saving £7.5bn but resulting in almost 5,000 job losses at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Marham. The number of Eurofighter Typhoons would be reduced from 160 to 107, all to be stationed at one air base creating an estimated saving of £1bn.

All 36 Hercules transport aircraft are to be phased out for replacement by the 22 A400Ms that are due to be ordered and a number of surveillance planes, including the nine Nimrod MR4 reconnaissance aircraft at a cost of £3.6bn, may also be scrapped under the plans.

The same proposals would see a 40 per cent cut in the number of armoured vehicles available to the Army, as well as the loss of around 5,000 troops following the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The size of infantry battalions may also be increased to 750 troops.

The Navy faces the smallest cuts in the leaked plans, with 2,000 sailors and marines, two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers to go.

The plans are reportedly being drawn up without taking the capital costs of the replacement nuclear deterrent into account, with the reduction in forces expected to shock Chancellor George Osborne into possibly limiting the extent of cuts required.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=13656

Tornado jets could be scrapped
Friday, July 30, 2010

The UK's entire fleet of 120 Tornado fast jets could be scrapped as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, it has been revealed.

As the MoD looks to make cuts of between 10 and 20 per cent from its annual budget, an internal assessment leaked to The Times newspaper is said to have identified that £7.5bn of savings could be made by grounding the aircraft.

The assessment reportedly considered the case for Britain's three fast jet fleets, but ruled out cuts to the Eurofighter. Grounding the UK's 45 Harriers, which are used by the RAF and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, was estimated to save just over £1bn.

Cutting either type of aircraft is expected to result in the closure of several bases.

Proposals to cut one of the fast jet fleets was reportedly first discussed at a meeting of the National Security Council on Saturday, 24 July. A decision to cut the Tornado fleet as opposed to Harriers was said to be "finding favour".

An anonymous source reportedly told the newspaper that despite the proposed heavy reductions, Fox would not consider merging the RAF with another service, describing the move as "a bridge too far for any government".

No final decisions have been made, and the MoD would not comment on the content of leaked reports or speculation regarding the SDSR.

----
• 16,000 personnel from all services
• hundreds of tanks, half a dozen warships and scores of aircraft
• 7,000 from the RAF or one in six personnel
• 295 RAF aircraft, leaving the RAF with less than 200 aircraft for the first time since 1914
• RN will lose 100 senior officers, two submarines, three amphibs and 2,000 sailors/marines
• Army will lose 4,000 armoured vehicles from their 9,700 - mostly Challenger tanks and Warrior APC's
• Army will also lose a brigade of 5,000 troops
• the entire force of 120 Tornado GR4 aircraft will go. They were supposed to be in service until 2025 however they require a major overhaul costing 10 million pounds for each aircraft. If cut it will save 7.5 billion pounds over the next 5 years. Will this mean the end of 617SQN? Typhoons cut from 160 to 107. At USD150,000 per hour, little wonder
• all 36 Hercs gone and replaced by 22 new Airbus A400M Grizzly's
• Royal Marines removed from the RN and coming under Army control to be made part of an SF "super elite" unit.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:24/08/10

SOURCE:Flight International

Defence community mulls over Fox's intentions

By Alan Dron

UK defence secretary Liam Fox's recent speech on the vexed question of his ministry's grievously overstretched budget raised as many questions as it answered.

He indicated, for example, that the looming reductions in defence spending would be "short term", raising the possibility that funding levels may rise again after the UK's financial crisis has been dealt with some years down the line. But he also ruled out the traditional "salami-slicing" approach to budget-cutting, instead suggesting the Ministry of Defence will divest itself of military capabilities unlikely to be required by the end of the current decade - but gave no indication what might be ditched.

Fox said neither he nor Prime Minister David Cameron had entered government wishing to oversee a reduction in the defence budget. Indeed, both had previously argued there was a strong case for actually increasing the amount spent on national security.

However, in his 13 August address to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Fox made clear that the £37 billion ($54 billion) "black hole" of planned but unfunded purchases built up under the previous Labour administration meant that cuts were inevitable.

He said: "During their time in office Labour pushed projects ever more desperately into future years to try to make an impossible budget balance in year, only to increase the overall cost of the defence programme still further.

"The price of this irresponsibility will ultimately be paid for by short-term reductions as we try to return defence to a sound footing."

Defence analysts think it unlikely that there will be permanent jettisoning of capabilities from the UK Royal Air Force's portfolio. They do, however, think that those capabilities may be reduced to very low levels.

"The trick is to keep enough 'seed corn' so that when the better times come, you can regenerate," says Andrew Brookes, director of The Air League, which promotes the cause of aviation in the UK.

ADS, the UK's aerospace and defence industry umbrella group, widely welcomes Fox's comments. However, chief executive Rees Ward cautions: "Maintaining the medium-term capabilities required to address emerging threats will require the sustainment if not enhancement of the small percentage of the defence budget earmarked for investment in research and technology."

Trevor Taylor, professorial research fellow in defence management at the Royal United Services Institute, concurs: "I think what they're looking for are areas where they can minimise the capability so they can rebuild it if necessary." This could mean sharing specific capabilities with France or another European nation in the short term, he suggests.

Rumours have abounded that complete fleets of aircraft may be disposed of, with the Panavia Tornado GR4 strike aircraft and BAE Systems Harrier GR9 held up as candidates.

Brookes points out there is no immediately available replacement for the Tornado: "You can argue that once the Joint Strike Fighter comes in, you can do all manner of things, but it's not around yet, so you might lose capability for some time."

Taylor adds that the UK originally planned to buy 138 of the Lockheed Martin F-35 JSFs, but at a time when the aircraft's predicted cost was much lower than today. "I would be very surprised if the UK bought the number it originally said it would," he says.

Buying a radically smaller number would potentially affect plans for the full complement of JSFs on its two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, but Taylor strongly suspects that the second carrier will fall victim to budget cuts.

He adds that the service is facing a culturally difficult period. "The great value of the RAF at the moment is in providing services that it has never seen as particularly glamorous, but there's no doubt the air transport - and particularly the helicopter operations and work the Chinook is doing in Afghanistan - are really very important. The air force is also facing up to the reality that in the medium term the significance of the combat pilot is likely to diminish with the appearance of UAVs and UCAVs."

However, Brookes does think there may be a risk of some capabilities disappearing by default.

[B]One of the most obvious cases is maritime patrol. The last BAE Systems Nimrod MR2s was withdrawn from service earlier than anticipated this year as a money-saving exercise and the latest MoD-mandated delay to the replacement MRA4 variant means that it will not reach initial operational capability until October 2012. This means the UK has no maritime patrol capability, notwithstanding the use of the Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules as a rudimentary patroller.

"With each passing month, some Treasury person might say: 'You've done without it so far - do you actually need [a maritime patrol capability]?'"

Both acknowledge that funding for all the UK's armed forces will take a further major hit if the Treasury continues to insist that the £20 billion cost of replacing the Vanguard nuclear deterrent submarines has to come out of the MoD's budget, rather than central funds, as has always previously been the case with the UK's nuclear forces.

This, says Brookes, raises the question of "How much is enough?" when it comes to deterrence.

"There's no Soviet Union any more. You're holding this [capability] presumably against a failed state or a marauding group of terrorists. If you need the bare minimum to deter, maybe you don't need those submarines." An air-delivered deterrent would be much cheaper, he suggests.

[Deks]

A realistic evaluation as to what assets are required to defend the UK should not be completely out of the question. I do find cutting maritime patrol to be a laughable suggestion, though.

[buglerbilly]

A realistic evaluation as to what assets are required to defend the UK should not be completely out of the question. I do find cutting maritime patrol to be a laughable suggestion, though.

MP as it stood will need to change, different environment now. The bigger problem is the fact there is paucity of suitable air assets apart from the P-8. It may well suit UK purposes more to take a sabbatical from MP in an ASW sense for the next 5-7 years..............the problem then becomes the loss of expertise you have suffered, very little of which will still be available elsewhere within the RAF or RN..............whether this latter aspect is viewed as a critical aspect remains to be seen.

I'd be more concerned about the loss of Surface Fleet.

[Mercator]

Any capability can be reconstituted if you put aside enough time. With antisubmarine warfare, there is one benefit in that the bad guys have to create a realistic submarine threat in the first place and that provides the lead time. There will be arguments each way, but I think you could make the case that the ASW threat in the north Atlantic is fairly remote at this point. So there's that.

The UK is blessed with good allies. In much the same way that Australia has been able to keep an eye on developments in certain capabilities by sending people off on exchange, so too can the UK. I think they could shelve the Nimrods, post the operators to various surveillance capabilities, including Rotary wing ASW and UAVs, send some guys on exchange and make a plan to start again in 10 years time with a blank sheet of paper. The world of maritime patrol is changing fast. Some of today's weapons and tactics won't be much use in the future anyway. It's not a low-level game any more, for example. There will be more high-level stand-off use of weapons and sensors including the remote use of UAVs as an extension of the MPA. I'm not sure that today's Nimrod is up to that. The upgrade program started a long time ago -- before some of these things came to the fore. I'm not even sure they can handle multi-static buoy processing and all that. Better to put them into storage just in case and draw a line under it all.

They will need a basic EEZ Patrol capability though. Maybe they could rent one.

[Gubler, A.]

Why are they keeping their nuclear deterrent? What's the point? Who's going to launch a surprise attack on the UK that wouldn't be deterred by the US force? The only answer is the USA. Does the UK have a threat from the USA? Nope. So why spend billions on submarines, missiles, etc they don't need. They can keep a handful of nuclear bombs for air dropping so no one gets uppity but no need for Trident.

If they scrap the nuclear force they can afford to retain a balanced conventional force close to the scale they currently have.

[buglerbilly]

I swing on the need depending on the time of month and how paranoid I feel................:eek3

Nobody has given it up once achieved..........and I remain dubious about whether the Brits should give it up or not, especially with Nebheads like Iran around.

There is a line of thought that says the sub-launch could be given up in its entirety but I'd suppose a reduced buy (3 versus 4 or even just 2 replacement SSN subs) should suffice..........a 24/7 need is no longer there...........

There are, what can be significant risks with reduction and/or operational methodology change.

My slant would be that they reduce by a half the SSN's OR even get rid of them BUT you need a viable alternative before you do that...........

[buglerbilly]

U.K. Defense Reforms Outdo Pentagon

Aug 25, 2010



By Robert Wall
London

The British government is augmenting its strategic defense review with an effort aimed at radically overhauling how the armed forces are managed. One goal is to avoid missteps that contributed to ballooning program costs.

The institutional reform plan, launched by Defense Secretary Liam Fox on Aug. 13, will take the U.K.’s efforts to overhaul national security spending well past the unveiling of the Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) in late October. Fox is asking a panel of outside and internal experts to help ensure that structural changes are made. He wants the advisers to work with service chiefs to lay out efforts to reduce senior ranks of the armed forces and also decentralize decision-making.

But one of the most critical decisions will have to be made even before any of the reviews are completed. Several industry officials note that the central question for them is what stance London will take on funding the Trident replacement program. The Treasury Department would like the money to come directly from the Defense Ministry’s budget, a reversal from the past when Britain’s nuclear deterrent was funded separately. But Fox has been pushing back, and with less than two months to go before the SDSR is to be unveiled, the government has not signaled a consensus.

Even industry officials with no direct stake in Trident worry that if the bill—estimated at more than £20 billion ($31 billion)—has to be shoehorned into the defense spending plan, it will force draconian cuts across the rest of the force structure and modernization plans.

This uncertainty also appears to have investors concerned. BAE Systems, for example, is trading at a 20-40% discount compared with its peers, in part reflecting concerns over what may be ahead, says Virginie Vacca, equities analysts at Standard & Poor’s. (like Aviation Week & Space Technology, is a unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies.) The stock also was hit by decreasing volume on U.S. land vehicles and dollar-pound currency rebalancing, but Vacca says “utter uncertainty over the U.K. budget, especially the carrier,” is contributing to the drag on the stock price.

The central problem the government is trying to address is £37 billion in unfunded requirements during the next decade, of which £20 billion is directly linked to equipment and support programs. Fox says “short-term reductions” are unavoidable. Although he has shied away from signaling where the ax may fall, he says that “we need to invest in programs that we will require to put our defense on a sound footing for the years ahead and divest ourselves of the capabilities which we are unlikely to need in a world where the moral climate demands precision weaponry and where the battle*space increasingly embraces the unmanned and cyber domains.” The key will be to balance immediate needs with the ability to deal with future ones.

Rees Ward, chief executive of the British Aerospace, Defense and Security lobby group, notes that “maintaining the medium-term capabilities required to address emerging threats will require the sustainment, if not enhancement, of the small percentage of the defense budget earmarked for investment in research and technology. This investment is not something that you can turn off and on like a tap,” he notes. “Once the industrial capabilities it supports are lost, they are gone forever and can only be reinstated at disproportionate cost.” What’s more, he adds, defense outlays have already been in decline as a percentage of government spending, which should be factored into the scale of current cuts.

Although the SDSR will affect defense programs more directly than other parts of the reform agenda, Fox suggests the structural changes he plans to implement also will have an impact. In particular, he intends to align the Defense Ministry along pillars—one focused on policy and strategy, another on the armed forces, and the third on procurement and infrastructure.

Fox believes the existing structure led to poor decision-making in establishing defense requirements. The modified system should lead to a more ordered flow, from foreign policy and defense strategy to identifying capability gaps and setting up specific programs. There is a need to “stop the constant over-specification and then re-specification of programs, which has led to so many cost overruns and program delays,” he argues.

To ensure that the changes are implemented, Fox has established a Defense Reform Unit—headed by Lloyd’s insurance Chairman Peter Levene—to help inform and review the process. The Defense Ministry itself is to draw up a formal blueprint over the next 12 months.

The Defense Review Unit will also work with the service chiefs on determining how more decision-making power can flow to the branches of the military, in an effort to become more efficient. The changes, which will also consider cuts in senior officer ranks, is due to be completed in the spring.

The new facets of the institutional overhaul make the British review more sweeping than even what the Pentagon rolled out recently. And given Parliament’s relatively limited ability to alter the form of the plans, London’s efforts are more likely to be implemented.

Photo: BAE Systems

[buglerbilly]

IF Fox can bring this off, then the changes may well lead to the structural modifications ohh so necessary to the UK Forces future.

His current efforts seem to be heading in the right direction.

[buglerbilly]

Latest UK Armed Forces manning figures released

A Defence Policy and Business news article

26 Aug 10

A pretty stunning set of figures.............

Figures showing that the UK Armed Forces are currently at 99.7 per cent of their full-time trained strength requirement have been released today by the MOD.


Junior Soldiers graduation parade at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, North Yorkshire (stock image)
[Picture: Chris Barker, Crown Copyright/MOD 2009]

This is up from 97.4 per cent a year ago and shows a continuing upward trend.

18,630 new recruits have joined the UK Regular Forces in the 12 months to 30 June 2010. This is a decrease of 5,010 from the 12 months to 30 June 2009 as the Armed Forces are now very nearly fully-manned, meaning there is a reduced intake requirement.

The statistics also show that the number of people leaving the trained strength of the UK Regular Forces in the 12 months to 30 June 2010 has fallen by 9.8 per cent (1,990 people) compared with the same period a year ago.

As at 1 July 2010, the full-time trained strength of the UK Armed Forces was 178,380, against a target of 178,880. This comprises 173,930 UK Regular Forces, 830 Full-Time Reserve Service personnel and 3,610 Gurkhas.

Under Secretary of State for Defence, Andrew Robathan, said:

"It is encouraging to see that a career in our Armed Forces is proving to be a popular choice, so much so that we are at almost 100 per cent of our manning requirement.

"Our personnel are some of the best in the world and the work they are doing in operational theatres and back in the UK demonstrates this.

"Although the numbers of people we need to recruit have reduced, recruitment continues, and, with more people staying in the Armed Forces too, we continue to strengthen all three Services."

Since 1 July 2009, the proportion of females in the UK Regular Forces has remained static at 12.1 per cent for officers, and risen from 9.0 per cent to 9.1 per cent for other ranks.

The percentage of UK Regular Forces from ethnic minority backgrounds has remained static at 6.6 per cent of UK Regular Forces since 1 July 2009.

[Deks]

Why are they keeping their nuclear deterrent? What's the point? Who's going to launch a surprise attack on the UK that wouldn't be deterred by the US force? The only answer is the USA. Does the UK have a threat from the USA? Nope. So why spend billions on submarines, missiles, etc they don't need. They can keep a handful of nuclear bombs for air dropping so no one gets uppity but no need for Trident.

If they scrap the nuclear force they can afford to retain a balanced conventional force close to the scale they currently have.

Well, the UK doesn't have an air-launched nuclear capability anymore, though the costs of re-instating one are likely to be far less than a new class of SSBNs.

I suppose the question to be asked is would the UK ever launch a nuclear strike off their own hook, and to be honest I can't see it happening barring a similar strike on the UK. Is there a situation where the US would be uninterested in the UK's safety? Perhaps.

Such scenarios do lend themselves to fantasy however, so you are most probably right in all respects. The french proposal of pooling the sub-based deterrent may hold merit, perhaps as part of a larger European defense strategy. Something tells me that relying on US nuclear support would be a political non-starter though, even though Australia and Canada rely on it exclusively.

[buglerbilly]

SAS lose veterans and TA regiment

The SAS is facing the greatest cuts since the end of the Second World War with veterans being forced out and a Territorial Army regiment set to close.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent, UK Daily Telegraph

Published: 1:14PM BST 29 Aug 2010

More gris to the rumour of what is or isn't going to be deleted...........this one has, however, been signalled for months and is most likely true.......

The Director of Special Forces, a major general who cannot be named, will meet with reserve SAS soldiers this week to inform them that their services are no longer required.

Already more than 40 veteran SAS men have been given their marching orders after the Army said it can no longer afford to pay them.

While British special forces are seen as one of the greatest global assets Britain has to offer and are particularly coveted by the US, they are expensive accounting for an estimated £2 billion out of the £37 billion MoD budget.

However, like the rest of defence the SAS has had to make cuts and getting rid of the “old and the bold” and part of the TA is seen as the best solution.

As a result of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, under which the Ministry of Defence has to make cuts of between 10 and 20 per cent, the SAS will also lose either 21 SAS or 23 SAS, its two TA battalions who also contribute to the war in Afghanistan.

“Sadly the director (DSF) is going round this week to talk to people because it looks likely we are going to lose a reserve regiment,” an SAS source said. “This is modern times and all we can really afford is the fighting young blades who deploy on operations.

“DSF is doing the sensible thing and is looking at them in the eye and saying the pot is this big and here are the options and this is why.

“It very unfortunate and inevitably will take something away from UK special forces but that is the reality of it.”

There has also been outcry that the SAS is losing its most experienced men who have served on operations since September 11th.

Special forces troops are given special exemption to serve beyond their contracted 22 years as recognition of their contribution to national security. The system is called “continuance” and the troops are found jobs on operations desks or backroom work.

But with defence cuts and more numbers of men staying in the regiment as a result of the poor economy the older troops have been told to move on.

The decision has been criticised as “ludicrous” by SAS insiders although the men have accepted that “their time is up”.

Some of the soldiers, who are in the 40s, have been involved in some of the toughest fighting against the Taliban in 2001 and Iraqi insurgents from 2003.

It is believed that the reductions were ordered before the current government came into power.

Throughout the Army there are currently moves to get rid of “dead wood” as it has reached nearly 100 per cent manning for the first time since the last war.

A further time bomb facing commanders is the potential dismissal of more than 4,000 badly wounded troops from Iraq and Afghanistan who will never be able to deploy on the front line.

Former SAS officer Colonel Clive Fairweather said: "I'd hang on to the special forces, to every bit of experience they've got, even if they are grey-haired, old dogs – it's what's in their heads that's important. I would really fight hard to keep those guys."

But Col Tim Collins, a former infantry commander who served in the SAS, said it had come to the point where “the experience they bring is no longer needed on operational tasks”.

“At the age of 45 or 50 you are no longer swinging through windows dishing out death.

“The regiment is a young man’s game and in fairness the old and bold have had a good run.”

The regular SAS was disbanded at the end of the Second World War but reformed to meet fight the Malayan Emergency in the early Fifties.

[buglerbilly]

More gris for the rumour mill.................:dunno:cuckoo

Gurkha regiment under threat as MoD spending cuts dig deep

By Ian Drury

Last updated at 12:53 AM on 30th August 2010

One of Britain's most famous Army regiments could be sacrificed under drastic defence cuts.

Ministers risk being forced to take the axe to the Gurkhas in an attempt to save millions of pounds.

One military expert warned that the 'writing was on the wall' for the Nepalese soldiers, who have been part of the Army for nearly 200 years.

History: The Gurkhas have fought alongside British soldiers for nearly 200 years

Chancellor George Osborne has ordered the Ministry of Defence to make cuts of between 10 and 20 per cent of its £36.9 billion budget as he attempts to claw back Britain's multi-billion-pound deficit.

Public support for the Gurkhas was highlighted last year when actress Joanna Lumley spearheaded a successful campaign to force the Labour government to give retired veterans the right to settle in the UK.

Her fight was backed by David Cameron, the Tory leader, and his Liberal Democrat counterpart Nick Clegg.

But the campaign has made the Gurkha regiments - which have 3,640 personnel - more vulnerable to the axe by increasing their costs.

Gurkha veterans who move to Britain are entitled to full pensions, whereas those back home receive around a third of what former British soldiers are paid.

Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and a former army officer, said: 'The first people to go will be the Brigade of Gurkhas, probably in their entirety.

'In the past, the Gurkhas' existence was guaranteed by the fact they are cheaper to run than British troops, and that there was a shortage of British troops. Recent changes mean they are now just as expensive, and recruitment is extremely healthy at the moment. I am afraid the writing is on the wall.'


The recruitment of Gurkhas was placed under review by the MoD in January last year.

It came as Army chiefs scrapped the active recruitment of foreign troops in favour of Britons during the credit crunch. The number of Britons joining up rose by 1,000 in 2009 compared with the previous year, and taking foreign and Commonwealth soldiers was seen as a 'lesser requirement'.

The Prime Minister and his deputy in the Coalition Government, are now among the leading politicians who have ordered cuts in a bid to drag the UK's finances back into the black.

Defence chiefs may be forced to cut deeper if Mr Osborne insists that the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent submarines is paid for from the MoD's budget.

A spokesman for the Gurkha Welfare Trust, which provides support for ex-Gurkhas and their families, admitted that they were vulnerable.

He said: 'The Government has made it clear there are no sacred cows.'

Britain's elite Special Forces suffered a blow after MoD officials scrapped rules which allow the crack troops to serve until the age of 45.

The move to bring the SAS into line with the regular Army by imposing an age limit of 40 was last night branded 'madness'. Almost 40 men will be affected by the move.

Former SAS figures warned it would mean the loss of some of the most experienced fighters, whose participation in missions to kill or capture Taliban leaders in Afghanistan has been invaluable.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307256/Gurkha-regiment-threat-MoD-spending-cuts-dig-deep.html#ixzz0y4igb03V

[Milne Bay]

Members of the SAS and now the Gurkhas.
Methinks the sharp end of the sword is not the place to be cutting numbers.
I can just hear the Arggies in the next Faulklands War trembling because the accountants are coming

[buglerbilly]

There is all sorts of weird to ridiculous rubbish flying around at the moment in rumours...........the fact one of the TA SAS regiments goes is viewed as no big deal by a heap of people reportedly not least because they don't add much to the home groups..............the loss of the Ghurka's is silly, not least because they have a natural affinity with the places we are going to be fighting for the next 10-15 years seeing as their own home country is in similar mountainous regions PLUS the Brits OWE them a HUGE debt for their undoubted service over the years................

The Ghurkas are viewed with glowing regard in the UK (and elsewhere). The fact that they were so hard done by financially for years, now re-dressed, is no reason for sacking them now that they are on par financially..............

I would caution though, that there is some utter crap being rumoured right now, part of it to see what reaction they get and a huge chunk only viable in the polluted minds of certain journos.............

[rawcs]

I have seen mention that the Gurkhas are also under threat from the Maoist dominated government in Nepal. They apparently are planning to stop recruitment occurring in Nepal. I'll see if I can dig up something more substantial.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Change of course for Royal Naval carrier operations?

Posted by Robert Wall at 8/31/2010 2:18 AM CDT

Here is the latest of our occasional updates on the U.K. Strategic Defense and Security Review scuttlebutt:

With less than two months to go before the details of what is to come being formally unveiled, the latest rumors suggest that Royal Navy aviation is in for a major shakeup.

On the one hand, we have the Daily Telegraph’s report saying that the U.K. will ditch the Stovl Joint Strike Fighter in favor of the carrier version. The newspaper, in its report, see below, contends this is the first concrete decision to come out of the SDSR.

Couple that with the report from The Times that suggests the U.K. is getting in bed with the France on carrier operations. The story claims there will be operational sharing already in the near-term, with the long term prospect that one of two planned carriers may not materialize as a result of the scheme to be rolled out later in the year.

The two reports are interesting put together. France also wants to buy two aircraft carriers but is struggling to find funds for the second. And France operates catapult launch and arresting wire carrier aircraft, so by going together, each government might try to argue they are maintaining force projection capability at lower cost. Who would own a joint carrier could be the most difficult political issue to bridge (and what it might be called -- suggestions?).

if France and the U.K. will share assets, it could make sense for London to forego the Stovl JSF and go with the carrier-based versions that entails fewer operational performance compromises.

- Ends -

Jump jets to fall victim to spending cuts

New jump jets for the next generation of Royal Navy aircraft carriers will be cancelled to save money.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent, UK Daily Telegraph

Published: 9:00AM BST 30 Aug 2010

In a move that could put hundreds of British manufacturing jobs at risk, defence chiefs are ready to abandon plans to buy a vertical-landing fighter jet for the Royal Navy.

Instead, a cheaper conventional-landing warplane will replace the Navy’s Harriers when they retire.

The decision is the first to emerge from the Strategic Defence Review to have direct consequences for British industry. Rolls Royce will be hard hit by the move, which could also strain British relations with the US.

The Navy is buying two new aircraft carriers at a cost of more than £5 billion. Army and RAF chiefs have questioned that plan and suggested that one carrier should be scrapped or shared with the French navy.

Attempting to defend the carriers, Royal Navy chiefs are seeking cuts elsewhere in their planned spending.

Aircraft carriers now in service carry Harrier jets, which are can take off from a short runway and land vertically by directing the blast of their engines downwards.

The next generation of carriers are expected to carry US-made Joint Strike Fighters.

Originally, the Navy was planning to buy a specially-adapted short take-off vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF, which would take off and land on the carriers much as Harriers do now.

However, developing and building the special STOVL version of the JSF would cost more than buying the conventional version, and insiders say that cost cannot be justified.

The military value of vertical landing has also been questioned by senior officers, who say conventional fighters are more useful because they can fly further and faster and carry more weapons.

Using conventional jets would also make it easier to conduct joint operations with allies including the US and France, whose carriers

As a result of those calculations, the STOVL aircraft is set to be scrapped in favour of the cheaper conventional JSF, which would be launched from the new carriers using catapults.

In recent weeks, the MoD has quietly commissioned design work on catapults to launch jets from the new carriers, due to enter service in 2014 and 2016.

Because construction work on the ships is still at an early stage, adapting their designs to accommodate conventional aircraft is said to be relatively easy.

In addition, a team of 12 Royal Navy pilots has been sent to the US to train with conventional take-off aircraft on carriers.

Much of the specialised engine system for the STOVL jet is being made by Rolls Royce in Bristol, and the switch would jeopardise hundreds of jobs there.

The decision to abandon the STOVL jet could be rubber-stamped at a meeting of the National Security Council next week, although ministers are aware that the move could be controversial.

Giving up on the STOVL aircraft could lead to accusations of waste, since the Ministry of Defence has already spent more than £500 million on the programme.

But insiders say the overall saving of buying standard fighters instead will more than justify writing off that spending.

Pulling out of the STOVL project could also strain British relations with the US. The STOVL jet is being jointly developed with the US Marine Corps, and without British involvement, US costs are likely to increase.

Government sources said ministers will blame the previous administration for the need to change plans on the carriers and their aircraft.

A source said: “Labour chose the wrong type of aircraft and the wrong configuration of carrier, and they wasted a lot of money doing it. What’s going on now is about trying to fix that mess.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the Autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”

- Ends -

[buglerbilly]

UK May Borrow F-18s for Carriers

August 31, 2010

Military.com|by Colin Clark

Britain's Conservative government, faced with enormous deficits, may launch its Queen Elizabeth class carriers without airplanes to put on them as it considers early retirement for its Harrier jump jets.

The two 65,000 ton carriers are built into the UK's defense budget, but new airplanes are not. Scrapping the Harriers early, combined with delays to the Joint Strike Fighter short takeoff version, could leave the UK temporarily dependent on the U.S. for F/A-18s and V-22s. That raises the prospect of one country deploying carriers and then relying on another country to supply the airplanes to fly from them.

Although the U.S. and some NATO allies have engaged in exercises flying each others planes from each others carriers such heavy reliance on another country raised eyebrows among analysts the idea was reported in British newspapers.

"My first thought after reading the article was that [British Defense Minister Liam] Fox was floating a trail balloon, perhaps hoping the British public might object to the British Empire losing its independent ability to project power on its own. I recognize the UK will seldom deploy without others, including the US. However, it did just that during the Falkland campaign and likely does so periodically to show the UK flag globally. In either case a brand new carrier will lose much of its shine if deployed without a complement of capable combat aircraft," Frank Cevasco, one of Washington's top international defense consultants and a former senior Pentagon official responsible for international weapons cooperation, said in an email.

"Desperate times require desperate measures," Cevasco wrote, noting that "only the UK voters and their leaders can decide where the red line is."

The London Daily Mail quoted a senior military source saying that the "U.S. Marines have the aircraft. Their aircraft would fly from the British carriers. Or we could borrow some from them." To show just how sharp the debate must be within the British government and its Ministry of Defense, the Daily Telegraph has reported that Britain will scrap the F-35B and go with the JSF carrier version, known as the F-35C

The Queen Elizabeth carriers, the biggest warships ever built by the U.K., are designed to handle traditional carrier aircraft such as Super Hornets and the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) or STOVL aircraft such as the Harrier and JSF. While the primary design stresses STOVL, the carriers are designed to be retrofitted with arresting cables, according to U.S. defense industry sources. That would enable the F/A-18 E/Fs and their predecessors to take off and land on the British ships.

Also, the ships are designed to be fitted with steam catapults and the UK has also continued work on electro-magnetic catapults.

An industry source said Super Hornet and their predecessor models should have no trouble taking off from the British ships as the ships are "extremely capable and are extremely big." A Super Hornet should be able to "take off with a very significant combat load over deck with a zero wind load," the source said. And the F/A/-18's high energy nose gear mean it "is also ideally suited for ramp launches because they can absorb" the enormous energy required for a ramp launch.

The British plan to use the STOVL F-35 as the main weapon on the carriers so it would seem reasonable to conclude that any plans to use F-/A-18s instead of the F-35s would pose a threat to Lockheed Martin's long-planned sale of 138 F-35Bs.

However, the industry source dismissed the threat to the F-35Bs, saying that any sharing of Super Hornets with the U.K. would be strictly a "capability gap-filler," and not a replacement for the more advanced, fifth generation fighter.

If Britain hopes to supplement the Super Hornets with MV-22 Ospreys, that would be much more difficult, the industry source said. The Marines are relying on MV-22s in Afghanistan and as key aircraft for their Marine Expeditionary Units. The U.S. would be "hard-pressed" to lend some of those planes, according to the source.

Arms export restrictions should not be a problem for sharing any of the aircraft, the industry source said, especially for what he described as perhaps America's staunchest ally.

© Copyright 2010 Military.com. All rights reserved.

[buglerbilly]

France, Britain In Talks On Warship Timeshare

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 31 Aug 2010 10:20

PARIS - Historic rivals and modern day allies France and Britain are in talks on pooling their naval strength, officials said Aug. 31, after reports they might share a fleet of aircraft carriers.


Britain has two aircraft carriers, one of which is the HMS Ark Royal. Its other carrier is the HMS Illustrious. (AFP)

Neither Paris nor London would confirm a report in the British press that the Royal Navy and the Marine Nationale might share carriers, but French officials said the defense ministers would hold a news conference on Sept. 3.

"We're in a phase where we must absolutely synchronize our budget cuts so that, in the end, there's no loss in our military capacities," a senior French diplomat told AFP on the condition of anonymity.

"There was a lot of work over the summer. We are expecting a lot from the Franco-British summit in November. I hope there'll be real options," he said, adding that talks had been under way since June 18.

Another source close to the matter told AFP discussions were under way at a political level on possible cooperation in the use of aircraft carriers.

Separately, another French official confirmed that France's Defence Minister Herve Morin and Britain's Liam Fox would hold a news conference in Paris on Sept. 3, but declined to comment on the Aug. 31 press reports.

Any formal announcement is likely to have to wait until the Franco-British summit in November, when President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister David Cameron will be able to study the options, officials said.

The British daily The Times reported that Paris and London plan to share the use of two British and one French aircraft carriers in order to save money while still maintaining a vessel always at sea for their common defense.

Britain's Ministry of Defence refused to confirm or deny the report.

"The defense secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a strategic defense and security review will be concluded in the autumn," a spokesman said.

"Speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded."

Nevertheless, the reports followed a series of public suggestions that France and Britain are preparing an announcement.

Last week, in a keynote foreign policy address, Sarkozy said: "I heard the declarations of our British allies on bilateral cooperation with France. We are ready to discuss this without taboo.

"France is ready to undertake concrete plans to allow us to accomplish the toughest combat missions," he added.

France and Britain were hard hit by the international financial crisis and are struggling to fund their militaries - the two most powerful in the European Union - while both are stretched by war in Afghanistan.

Britain has two aircraft carriers, though there are times when both HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious are in dock, and has ordered two replacements at a cost of 5.2 billion pounds ($8 billion, 6.4 billion euros).

France operates the powerful Charles de Gaulle, a nuclear-powered vessel capable of launching fixed wing aircraft, but it is alone in its class in the French fleet and often at home undergoing maintenance.

According to reports, if Britain and France are able to agree to time their patrols so that there is always one carrier at sea, London may be able to cancel or downgrade one of the replacements - or sell it on.

For centuries the French and British fleets were the greatest rivals on the high seas, clashing regularly as the European neighbors built parallel global empires and raided each other's territory and shipping.

As recently as 1940 the Royal Navy sank a French fleet off the coast of Algeria - killing more than 1,200 sailors - amid fears it would fall under Nazi control after the World War II German invasion of France.

Since then, however, France and Britain have become allies within NATO and often conduct joint operations and exercises.

[buglerbilly]

UPDATE 2-Britain cool on mooted carrier sharing scheme

Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:57am EDT

There are some UK articles on this matter but I refuse to publidsh them as they are unadulterated Francophobia CRAP! One or two journos should be publicly emasculated for their rampant, strident and extreme nationalistic diarrhea..........:cuckoo :jerkit :shrug

* Defence ministers to meet in Paris on Friday

* UK source dismisses report aircraft carriers may be shared

* Both countries seeking savings in military spending

(Recasts with British and French sources, bilateral meeting)

By Tim Castle and John Irish

LONDON/PARIS, Aug 31 (Reuters) - Britain said on Tuesday it would discuss closer military cooperation with France in talks this week, but played down a report that the two countries would share aircraft carriers to save costs.

Britain is building two new carriers at a cost of 5.2 billion pounds ($8.0 billion) but, like France, is under pressure to find military savings to rebalance public finances.

The Times newspaper said the two nations were considering plans to save money by coordinating their carrier missions so that at least one vessel was on patrol at any time.

It quoted an unidentified British naval source as saying British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy would announce the carrier sharing plan at a November summit.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox travels to Paris on Friday for talks with his French counterpart Herve Morin, but a British Ministry of Defence (MoD) source told Reuters they would not be making any announcements on carrier sharing.

"We will be looking at areas of closer cooperation between the two countries. But there are no plans to share carriers," the source said.

Fox and Morin would discuss Afghanistan, the NATO military alliance and broader cooperation but there was no specific agenda for the one-hour meeting, an MoD spokeswoman added.

However in Paris, a French Defence Ministry source said sharing aircraft carriers had been "touched upon a few months ago and is now back" on the agenda.

"You have to see that there is an opportunity for both sides, especially for us. Instead of us paying for a second one, we have to work with our partners," the French source added.

France, which has only one aircraft carrier, has itself pushed back for several years the construction of a second, with a decision whether to go ahead delayed till 2011.

The carrier sharing proposal would ensure one of three ships -- one French and two British -- would always patrol the seas, The Times said. It would also make it easier for Britain to scrap or downgrade one of the planned carriers, which are due to enter service in 2016 and 2018.

Earlier this month, a defence ministry source told Reuters that Britain might cancel one or both of the planned aircraft carriers to cut costs, though there were no plans to scale back the country's nuclear deterrent. [ID:nLDE67I1I1]

The British carriers are being built by a consortium including BAE Systems (BAES.L) and Babcock International (BAB.L) of Britain, and French company Thales (TCFP.PA). (Additional reporting by Karolina Tagaris in London and Elisabeth Pineau in Paris; Editing by Jon Boyle)

[buglerbilly]

Government warned against cutting UK defence 'to the bone'

The head of Britain's aerospace and defence trade body yesterday warned against "cutting into the bone" of the industry as speculation mounts over the outcome of October's comprehensive spending review.

By Rachel Cooper

Published: 6:32AM BST 01 Sep 2010



ADS represents Britain's aerospace and defence industry Rees Ward CB, chief executive of industry group ADS, said: "Like any other industry, we understand why the Government has to do something about the nation's finances".

But he added: "We've had a major reduction in funding, not unreasonably one might argue... Defence has made a substantial contribution and therefore we must be very careful as we go forward that we don't start cutting into the bone, which may well occur."

His comments came as reports yesterday suggested that Britain and France could share aircraft carriers in an attempt to save money.

France, which has only one aircraft carrier, has pushed back for several years the construction of a second, while Britain is building two new carriers which are due to enter service in 2016 and 2018.

Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources were apparently seeking to downplay speculation yesterday that Britain and France could share carriers and that as a result, one of Britain's new vessels could be downgraded or scrapped.

An MoD spokesman said speculation about the outcome of the review was "entirely unfounded".

"The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn," he added.

Mr Ward said the industry was not aware of "any substantial conversations between industry and government" as to how any such plans to share aircraft carriers could be taken forward.

"These stories, if they have any substance, are based on government0to-government conversations which industry has no knowledge of," he added.

He also cast doubt on how much would be saved by sharing carriers. While he could not comment on the operational costs of such an idea, he said "it wasn't immediately obvious from an industry point of view how sharing carriers would save money".

Britain is building two aircraft carriers by a consortium including BAE Systems, Thales and Babcock at a cost of £5.2bn.

Mr Ward said that even if one carrier were to be downgraded, the impact on industry would not be "enormous".

If, for example, a carrier launched helicopters rather than fast jets, he pointed out that a ship with life support systems, sleeping accommodation and food preparation areas would still be needed. "The impact will be more marginal than huge," he said.

But he warned that when it came to defence spending as a whole, the Government must be careful to not pare back investment in the industry too much.

"Industry is anxious, we understand there may be a reduction. We lobby for a less draconian funding reduction because we say [other departments] could probably do a bit more given they have been in inflating budgets rather than defence which has been a deflating budget," he said.

Howard Wheeldon, a strategist at BGC Partners, said: "At this stage we can have little idea whether the proposed second carrier will, if is completed at all, be retained by the UK for Royal Navy service or whether maybe this could perhaps be sold to France or another nation."

"My own view is that given that maybe as much as £2bn has already been spent on the two carriers both will in fact be completed," he added.

[buglerbilly]

Now this is done stirctly tongue-in-cheek..................:D


'I think he jumped!'

[buglerbilly]

Britain and France will not share aircraft carriers, officials say

Reports that two countries are to combine forces denied as defence secretaries meet to discuss closer military co-operation

Richard Norton-Taylor, security editor guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 September 2010 18.36 BST


Officials have denied reports that Britain and France are to share aircraft carriers. Photograph: Sipa Press / Rex Features

British and French officials engaged in high-level defence talks have denied reports the two countries are considering sharing aircraft carriers, but are paving the way for unprecedented military co-operation, according to sources on both sides of the Channel.

Speaking on the eve of talks in Paris between the defence secretary, Liam Fox, and his French counterpart, Hervé Morin, officials said plans were being drawn up in an attempt to save money but maintain capabilities.

"We're in a phase where we must absolutely synchronise our budget cuts so that, in the end, there's no loss in our military capacities," a senior French diplomat told Agence France Presse news agency this week.

But British defence officials, irritated by reports of plans to "combine forces" and "share" ships, are keen to play down the significance of tomorrow's meeting. Morin is expected to be a victim of an imminent French government reshuffle.

"We will be looking at areas of closer co-operation between the two countries. But there are no plans to share carriers," British officials said.

Officials are instead pointing to the significance of the Franco-British summit between David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, due to be held in England on 5 November. In a keynote address to ambassadors last month, Sarkozy said France was prepared to undertake "concrete" defence projects with Britain. He added: "We will be discussing this with them without taboos in November."

The results of the British government's strategic defence and security review are expected to be announced before the November summit, making it easier for Cameron and Sarkozy to announce specific plans for co-operation.

Recent reports the two countries were planning to share ships, notably aircraft carriers, have provoked a storm of protest. Lord Boyce, the former first sea lord, said: "You cannot co-own an asset. It is totally impracticable and simply won't work."

French military officials have also expressed concerns about the practical problems involved, including different warship design. The countries also have different interests or have taken opposing positions on key international issues, including the Falklands Islands, former French colonies in Africa and the invasion of Iraq.

However, there are many potential areas of defence co-operation, which British and French officials have been working on intensely throughout the summer.

Britain is building two carriers at a cost of £5.2bn which are due to enter service in 2016 and 2018. They are unlikely to fall victim of the defence review, officials say, if only because £2bn has already been spent on them and under the contracts with shipyards and the manufacturers BAE Systems, Babcock International, and the French company Thales, scrapping them would save less than £1bn.

France, which has one aircraft carrier, has delayed until next year a decision on whether to build a second one.

Instead of sharing carriers, Britain and France could ensure more effective co-operation on missions about which the two governments agree, officials say. These could include humanitarian operations such as those off Lebanon four years ago and in the Persian Gulf.

Britain and France could also increase the "interoperability" of their warships, provide surface escorts for each other's carriers, and synchronise nuclear missile submarine patrols, officials say.

Officials point to successful co-operation between the two countries in the past on maritime missions in the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and countering pirates off the Horn of Africa.

[SteveJH]

OT, but is that photo of Clemenceau on the way for scrapping?

[buglerbilly]

More on the supposed sharing of Anglo French assets.........additional comments at the end..........

The English Channel Air Force?

By Colin Clark Friday, September 3rd, 2010 11:19 am



One of the trial balloons floated in the last two weeks in the fevered European debate about what not to buy for defense was that France and Britain would share aircraft carriers.

Publicly and officially their defense ministers repudiated that idea today but they did raise the prospect of sharing the fleet of the hugely over-budget but technologically impressive A400M air transport, as well as helicopters and some “naval units.”

“Tankers, A400s, naval units, but just to be clear not aircraft carriers, are areas where we can work toward pooling,” French Defense Minister Herve Morin said after a meeting with British counterpart Liam Fox. Several news agencies reported Morin’s and Fox’s remarks earlier today.

“This is about mutual interests. Our two natural partners are the U.S. and France. I can’t deny that there is an element of urgency added by budget concerns,” Fox said. Even though his country won’t share carriers with France, Fox left open the possibility the U.K. might cancel one of its Queen Elizabeth carriers, a decision he said would be taken in October. BAE Systems is the lead on the deal, with Babcock International Group and Thales as key partners on $7.5 billion deal.

The comments by Morin and Fox appear to leave on the table the idea that Britain might borrow F/A-18s from the United States for its carrier fleet. Britain has also reportedly considered canceling its F-35B STOVL buy for the carriers in favor of longer-range F-35Cs. this would require substantial additions to the carrier fleet, changes that have been designed to. But they would presumably increase the ships’ costs.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/09/03/the-english-channel-air-force/#ixzz0yWIfiEAB

Now some of this is not so remote as may first seem: -

1) The French do NOT have the funding to get urgently-needed new Air-to-Air Tankers. The Brit Tanker programme is now far advanced with the first two Tankers well-advanced. It would not be particularly difficult to add French Air Force needs into the Brit programme especially as it is based on contracted needs so, for example, the "stupid" (in my opinion) idea of having Civilian Airlines using the Tankers for pax/freight carriage in off-peak stages, becomes redundant as the TWO airforces should more than use up the time. Add in the possibility of Other airforces asking for access for Afghanistan needs and hey presto we have maximised use and a very efficient contract that could easily add a few MORE Tankers if the needs require, potentially going to be the case?

2) Ditto Naval assets, think Tankers and OPV's, MARS programme shared between the two Navies makes a lot of sense. You share the fuel/POL but retain the sovereignty of the asset. This immediately gets over political concerns about potential contradictory views in the future where one or another nation may wish to go into conflict and the other may not. The owner of the asset decides where the asset goes.

3) OPV's could be easily harmonised for anti-immigrant and anti-drug use in the Channel and surrounding areas. This could also ease into use UAV programmes both the French (EADS) and Brit (BAE) companies would like to see go into service.

4) The A400 harmonisation is about sharing of Training and Spares procurement and/or access, something that should be done across the whole spectrum of Euro A400 users............

Just my thoughts........

[buglerbilly]

Govt scuttles talk of France aircraft carrier share

By Dave Clark (AFP) – 2 days ago

PARIS — France and Britain announced Friday they are talking about sharing the cost of military aircraft programmes, but rejected reports that they plan to merge their aircraft carrier fleets.

"In terms of actually being able to share an aircraft carrier, I would have thought that that was utterly unrealistic," Defence Minister Liam Fox told reporters after talks with his French counterpart Herve Morin.

"But when it comes to pooling assets in other areas such as strategic or tactical lift I would have thought that that was a different case altogether," he added, referring to military transport planes and helicopters.

Earlier this week, the British press had reported that the Royal Navy and the Marine Nationale were preparing to put centuries of often bloody rivalry behind them and share the use of their most powerful vessels.

But the ministers, while admitting that their budgets were extremely tight and that they were seeking ways to share costs by pooling resources, insisted that no such drastic measure was on the table.

The government is undergoing a strategic defence review to decide which of its military programmes to cut, and Fox and Morin are to meet on October 14 to discuss "concrete plans" for cooperation.

"The work underway is ongoing at the rhythm determined by the British, who are undergoing an in-depth strategic review, against the backdrop of a serious budget problem," Morin told the pair's joint news conference.

"We have some tracks we're going down: the A400M, the refuelling planes, and perhaps cooperation on naval capacity -- but not on aircraft carriers, just so things are clear," he added.

The A400M is European plane-maker Airbus's troubled project to produce a military transport plane to replace the ageing fleets of C130 Hercules and Transalls working around the clock in Afghanistan and around the world.

The new plane was first ordered in 2003 by seven nations and air forces were to take their first deliveries at the end of 2009, but after lengthy technical delays they are now not expected until at least early 2013.

The project is also more than five billion euros over budget, at a time when client governments are looking for ways to reduce defence spending by renegotiating their contracts with Airbus.

Morin suggested that France and Britain could work together to ready the planes for combat service once they were finally delivered.

Airbus is also developing a new military plane based on its A330 civilian airliner for the mid-air refuelling of attack jets. The government plans to buy the jets through a complex public-private leasing deal.

"You'll have to wait for the end of October for more precise details," said Morin, when asked for concrete examples of how Britain and France are planning to work together more closely in the years to come.

But he said that the two militaries, the most powerful in the European Union and currently comrades in NATO's Afghan mission, would seek to save cash by working towards "mutualisation" of procurement projects.

Morin said France and Britain could work together developing new weapons and systems at the industrial level "either in cooperation or in creating extremely strong projects that would lead us to interdependence."

Fox did not go so far, but said that the United States and France were Britain's two most important Western allies and that France's willingness to deploy forces abroad made it a "natural ally and partner".

Both ministers said that they were in complete agreement over the need to cut bureaucracy at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and would push for this at the alliance's upcoming summit in Lisbon in November.

"The fat needs to be trimmed away, because we're not in NATO as a job creation project. We are there to ensure that it delivers what we need in terms of our combined security," Fox said, echoing Morin's view.

Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved

[buglerbilly]

Defence Reform Unit Starts Work

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Sept. 7, 2010)

Lord Levene, a former Chief of Defence Procurement and now Chairman of Lloyd's of London, yesterday chaired the inaugural meeting of the steering group overseeing the Defence Reform Review.

Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox launched the Defence Reform Unit on 13 August 2010 to conduct a fundamental examination of how the Ministry of Defence is structured and managed. His vision is of a leaner and less centralised Department that is built around Policy and Strategy, the Armed Forces, and Procurement and Estates.

Defence Reform is the third of Dr Fox's key priorities, alongside Afghanistan and the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).

Gerry Grimstone - currently Chairman of Standard Life and Candover Investments plc, who recently completed an independent review of civilians in Defence has joined the steering group since the announcement last month. The other members of the steering group are:

-- Lord Levene
-- Ursula Brennan (Second Permanent Under Secretary)
-- General Sir Nicholas Houghton (Vice Chief of the Defence Staff)
-- Baroness Sheila Noakes
-- George Iacobescu (Chief Executive of the Canary Wharf Group)
-- Raymond McKeeve (a partner at law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner)
-- Björn Conway (Head of Aerospace, Defence, Security and Resilience at Ernst & Young)
-- Dr David Allen (a Non-Executive Director at the MOD)

Dr Fox also attended part of yesterday's meeting. He emphasised that he was looking to the unit to identify ways of making the MOD a more effective organisation, as well as looking at how the Department can make significant savings in running costs.

The group had a wide-ranging discussion about the way the Department works at present and the approach they should take to Defence Reform - this included looking at the scope of the review and the timelines for their work. Lord Levene explained that he wanted the group to take a 'blank sheet of paper' approach, and have an open mind about the future shape of the MOD. The group agreed that they should aim to conclude their work by the end of July next year, but with the potential for reforms to be implemented on a rolling basis as the review takes place.

The full steering group will meet again next month. In the meantime, the group will break into three teams, each of which will look in more detail at key areas of Departmental activity.

The detailed work in support of the review will be undertaken by a civilian/military team within the MOD, led by two Senior Civil Servants, Dominic Wilson and Graeme Biggar. Terms of reference for the Defence Reform Review are currently being finalised. The team will consult widely - including with the Trade Unions - and provide regular updates to staff as the review progresses.

The SDSR will outline how policy will be aligned with resources to ensure the Armed Forces are prepared for the challenges of the future. The Defence Reform Unit's work will take account of the outcomes of the Government's Spending Review and the SDSR, and it will take forward those elements of the SDSR relating to Defence organisation and management.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Ending U.K. Carrier Program One Option Under Review

By ANDREW CHUTER

Published: 8 Sep 2010 15:09

LONDON - BAE Systems has been tasked by the British government to look at a number of options on the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier build program including axing the project, said company Chief Executive Ian King.


An industry alliance led by BAE is contracted to build two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers at a cost of 5.2 billion pounds ($7.9 billion). The first of the two, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is under construction and is scheduled to enter service in 2016. (BAE SYSTEMS CONCEPT)

The BAE boss told the parliamentary defense committee here that in the last week the government had asked the company to look at a range of options including "one carrier and no carrier."

An industry alliance led by BAE is contracted to build two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers at a cost of 5.2 billion pounds ($7.9 billion). The first of the two, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is under construction and is scheduled to enter service in 2016 followed by the second vessel in 2018. In July, BAE said the alliance had placed contracts worth about 1.25 billion pounds to suppliers on the program.

Previously, MoD officials had indicated that Britain might look at using one of the warships as a strike carrier while employing the second as a helicopter carrier for amphibious landings.

The British have been planning to acquire up to 138 vertical/short-takeoff and -landing (VSTOL) versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to equip the carrier and provide the Royal Air Force with a strike aircraft. Even with the carrier program in place, industry executives have been saying in recent months that the actual purchase of F-35s could be halved.

There has also been media speculation that Britain could dump the VSTOL version of JSF in favor of a conventional aircraft for the carrier. The warship was designed from the outset to be able to operate VSTOL or catapult operated aircraft.

At the start of this year, ministers in the previous Labor government told MoD project teams to cost out the financial impact of canceling or varying a number of programs, including the aircraft carriers.

Britain is conducting a strategic defense and security review that could lead to a large number of capability and program cuts. The Treasury here has told the MoD it will have to cut its budget over the next four years by between 10 and 20 percent to help reduce the government's huge public debt.

In addition, over the 10 years the MoD has unfunded liabilities in the equipment and support sector of more than 20 billion pounds, Defence Secretary Laim Fox said in a speech last month.

The defense review and the departmental budgets for the next four years are scheduled to be revealed by the government in late October. The National Security Committee is expected to start considering the proposals from the MoD next week.

Defense analyst Alex Ashbourne-Walmsley said the late request by the government to look at a number of options, including axing the carrier program, suggested the MoD was struggling to find the cuts required.

"It's an ominous sign that the cuts proposals haven't reached the scale expected by the National Security Committee," Ashbourne Walmsley said. "Cancellation would have a devastating impact on the small to medium companies supplying the program and call into question Britain's future shipbuilding capabilities, unless other significant work is put in its place."

Giving evidence to the defense committee, King also said BAE was trying to reduce the cost of the upcoming renewal of Britain's nuclear missile armed submarines. One of the options being considered is the timing of a program, which is estimated to cost between 15 billion pounds and 20 billion pounds to replace the existing fleet of Vanguard-class nuclear submarines.

The MoD stuck to its usual response regarding possible cuts in the October defense review.

"The defense secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded," said a spokesman for the department.

One industry executive said a decision to build no carriers is extremely unlikely, but that the MoD is crunching the numbers on one vessel.

[buglerbilly]

Defence cut threat to the special relationship

Inflicting deep cuts on the Armed Forces could threaten the Special Relationship between Britain and the US, President Barack Obama’s defence department has warned the Government.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent, UK Daily Telegraph
Published: 10:05PM BST 12 Sep 2010


Defense Secretary Robert Gates looks on as President Barack Obama speaks in the Cabinet Room Photo: AP

In private exchanges, the Pentagon told defence ministers and senior officials that the US was worried Britain’s cuts could widen the transatlantic divide in military power and spending.

The warning could put new pressure on the Treasury to limit planned cuts in Britain’s defence capabilities.

The National Security Council will soon meet to discuss the detailed impact of the cuts. The Daily Telegraph today begins a major series of articles examining the implications of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

The review will reshape the nation’s defence strategy, and raise questions about Britain’s role in the world.

An agreement between Nato countries commits them to spending at least 2 per cent of their gross domestic product on defence. Britain is one of the few Nato members apart from the US that currently meets that goal.

The £37 billion a year defence budget could be cut by almost a fifth as the Treasury squeezes public spending and Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, struggles to pay for an unfunded “black hole” for new equipment.

Dr Fox is considering flying out to Washington to meet US officials to assuage their worries later this month, before the defence review ends.

Whitehall sources have disclosed that provisional estimates from MoD negotiations with the Treasury show core defence spending could fall below Nato’s 2 per cent standard — perhaps to as little as 1.7 per cent of GDP.

The US routinely spends more than 4 per cent of GDP on defence, and military analysts say the widening gap will make it harder for European forces to work with US forces equipped with ever more sophisticated equipment.

It is understood that a senior American official recently called the MoD to discuss “concerns” about the prospect of an even greater spending gap.

Michele Flournoy, the under-secretary for policy at the Pentagon, telephoned Tom McKane, the MoD’s strategy director, to raise the issue. “The Americans are sympathetic, but it’s fair to say they have some fairly serious concerns about where we will end up,” said a Whitehall source.

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, has also discussed the coming cuts with Dr Fox. It is understood that he has told the Defence Secretary that the US believes it is vital that Britain retains its nuclear deterrent and its extensive intelligence-gathering operations.

He also underlined the American desire for Britain’s special forces units to be able to participate in US-led counter-terrorism operations.

Dr Fox, a passionate supporter of the Special Relationship, is said to be committed to allaying the American fears. As The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday, special forces units are likely to be among the few winners from the defence review. Their numbers could rise, even though thousands of other service personnel face the axe.

However, some senior officers are worried that likely cuts in manpower will make it harder to maintain the elite quality of units such as the SAS.

The Trident nuclear deterrent is also set to be renewed, but work on a replacement weapons system could be delayed. Delaying the construction of new nuclear-armed submarines could allow Britain to synchronise its ship-building programme with America, which will start replacing its Trident submarines later this decade.

Insiders say Dr Fox and Mr Gates have a strong working relationship, and the US defence chief is keen to help his British counterpart deal with the impact of the cuts.

The National Security Council had been scheduled to start making decisions on cuts on Friday. However, the meeting will be rescheduled to avoid a clash with the funeral of David Cameron’s father.

Andy Smith, of the UK National Defence Association, said the defence review was emerging as “a Treasury-led process” that could endanger the relationship with the US. He said: “The Americans have been alarmed about this for some time and rightly so. Our forces are already underfunded and struggling to keep up with up the Americans.”

The MoD said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”

More than 100 contracts totalling about £1.25 billion have been awarded for the construction of two new aircraft carriers. The figures were disclosed in a parliamentary answer after doubts were raised as to whether the Government would persist with the project, on which thousands of jobs in Scotland depend.

[Deks]

I hadn't read this before, though other articles on this page alluded to it. If it's already been posted I apologize.



Navy jet switch to save £10bn

Published: 1 August 2010 Sunday Times London

The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers.

It is expected to swap an order for 138 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) for a version of a cheaper aircraft currently flown off US carriers, the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The cost-saving move was considered at a meeting last weekend between Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and services chiefs to discuss cuts.

“JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,” said a senior defence source. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate, and even if we continued with it we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.”

The JSF, built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing’s main American rival, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget, with costs already put at £13.8 billion and rising. The aircraft were set to replace Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Navy.


Note from page 8:



Meanwhile, sources have told the Sunday Times that the RN is looking at the possibility of pulling out of the Joint Strike Fighter program and acquiring Boeing Super Hornets instead for its two new aircraft carriers. Again, this is a drastic move - but, formally, the MoD has not yet decided whether the new carriers will be designed for catapults or for STOVL aircraft, and indeed issued a contract to Converteam UK in July to continue work on an electromagnetic aircraft launch system.

Presumably, UK thinking is linked to the high cost of JSF - at least, as predicted by Pentagon auditors - compared with the fixed price and capability offered by Boeing.

Given that other reports have suggested that at least one of the carriers is a potential target in the current review, and that the carrier's air wing is going to cost a lot more than the ships, the Admiralty may be offering a deal: If we take the Super Hornet, can we use the savings to build both carriers?

The latest report goes a long way to explaining why Boeing chose Farnborough to unveil its newest Super Hornet proposal. However, some commenters on UK-based message boards are also hinting that the leak could be part of a UK campaign to pressure the US to ratify the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty, now stalled in the Senate. Together with a similar treaty with Australia, it's intended to resolve long-standing technology transfer issues with JSF and other programs.

[buglerbilly]

Strategic Defence and Security Review: four future scenarios and how they might play out

Thomas Harding, The Daily Telegraph's Defence Correspondent, looks at four possible future scenarios for Britain's armed forces.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent, UK Daily Telegraph

Published: 12:26PM BST 14 Sep 2010

The DT operating at the Marvel Comic level again.............

The future is grim, full of muscle-flexing former superpowers, emerging global powers, nuclear attacks, cyber warfare and the inevitability of climate-related conflict. At least, those are the images in the crystal ball consulted by defence planners, who have the near-impossible job of predicting future threats and the Armed Forces needed to meet them.

The assumption before we got bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan was that if you made forces for the high end of warfare, they could easily adjust to low-end fighting. The streets of Basra and the compounds of Helmand disproved that idea, as the death toll among forces ill-equipped and poorly trained for counter insurgency became apparent.

On September 11 2001, British forces were configured largely as an unwieldy armoured force, with fast jets and frigates to fight a Soviet threat. For nearly a decade that equipment has barely been used but the threats are too numerous to do away with the big guns. “We have the prospect of a major war in the 21st century,” says Professor Gwyn Prins, the future conflict specialist at the London School of Economics.

The MoD’s seminal document, the Future Character of Conflict, predicts that by 2029, control over resources will “increase the incidence of conflict”, as world population rises to 8.3 billion. Boundary disputes, such as in the Arctic, Gulf of Guinea and South Atlantic will “become inextricably linked to securing energy supplies”, with Britain “critically dependent upon energy imports”. This will demand “strong regional influence and, if necessary, the ability to project and maintain military power”. The paper warns of high-end warfare (without mentioning Iran). It adds (without mentioning China) that “it cannot be assumed that the West will retain sufficient military advantage over rising powers in all circumstances, which may embolden actors where previously they had been deterred.” The possession of nuclear weapons “perceived as essential for survival and status” will remain “a goal of many aspiring powers”.

And above all this lies the unknown impact of climate change, which might make flooding and drought prime movers of conflict. Planners can be forgiven for regarding the future as dark and uncertain.

PAKISTAN 2018



• Crisis: A civilian government has been elected after five years’ military dictatorship but the generals have refused to hand over the codes and keys for the nuclear arsenal. The ousted military seize the missile silos. The Pakistan army splinters, with those loyal to the generals joining a pact with the Taliban who are sharing power with a new government in Afghanistan. Most of the country is overrun by the rebels. A main supply route is cut off to the remaining Nato troops in Afghanistan.

• Response: The UN authorises a multi-national stabilisation force led by a US division and fleet, with a Chinese task force with its new aircraft carrier in the coalition. After three years of recovery from bloody fighting in Helmand, Britain agrees to send one of its five new manoeuvre brigades, equipped with tanks, mine-protected vehicles, armed drones and a fleet of attack and transport helicopters. In the Indian Ocean, two Type 45 destroyers, re-equipped with new anti-ballistic missiles from the US Navy, act as a last-ditch defence against a nuclear missile launch.

• Outcome: F35 Joint Strike Fighters (pictured above) are launched from US and British aircraft carriers against the missile silos. But the rebels manage to launch two nuclear warheads at an installation near Karachi towards Mumbai, 300 miles away. Both are shot down, one by a US warship and one by a Type 45 destroyer. A joint US, British and Chinese amphibious assault storms ashore to the west of Karachi and captures key airfields. In all, 10,000 men are flown in by the RAF’s new transport fleet. An international force of more than 100,000 troops retakes rebel-held areas. The UN force agrees to maintain security for two years while it trains up a stable Pakistani military.

• Likelihood: Very likely

• Readiness: Almost ready

IRAN 2016



• Crisis: Iran has finally built an arsenal of nuclear weapons and quietly threatens to use them against other Gulf States unless they agree to increase its OPEC quota on oil exports. As platforms in the Gulf come under military threat, oil prices rise dramatically threatening world economies only just recovered from recession. Iran also reveals it has developed highly capable surface-to-air missiles.

• Response: A closed session of the UN Security Council’s Permanent Five agrees a surgical strike action against four installations where missiles have been built or are deployed. Iran’s highly successful “anti-access” policy of sea and land mines, air defence and sea swarm attack means that a conventional invasion is impossible.

• Outcome: Royal Navy Astute submarines (pictured above) launch Tomahawk Block V “bunker buster” cruise missiles. For the first time RAF Eurofighter Typhoons fly combat sorties — out of Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. They strike surface-to-air missile vehicles and radar installations pin-pointed by SAS and US Delta Force covertly inserted close to the installations using high-altitude parachutes, flying in from 20 miles away to dodge radar. American carrier-borne F18 Super Hornets carry out similar strikes. A helicopter assault force shuttled by a dozen Chinooks from assault ship Ocean lands paratroopers and Royal Marines from the new Operational Assault Brigade on to one of the nuclear sites through an air corridor cleared of SAMs. Similar air assaults are undertaken by US forces at the other three sites, which are also destroyed — knocking out Iran’s nuclear strike capability. The Tehran government is toppled by an uprising assisted by Shias in Iraq’s government.

• Likelihood: Likely

• Readiness: Ready

UGANDA 2023



• Crisis: Britain has developed increasingly close links with Uganda for its copper and cobalt, also huge land deals for guaranteed supplies of wheat as climate-related food shortages hit European markets. Chinese land deals in Africa have also reduced cultivated land for hire. The insurgency from neighbouring Congo spills over into Uganda and foments an uprising among impoverished people who believe the insurgents’ propaganda that the British are stealing their food and riches. Two large mines are overrun, along with a large number of farms. Scores of British citizens are taken hostage. The British embassy in Kampala is set alight and the government declares a state of emergency with a promise that it will renege on the British land deal.

• Response: The UN condemns Kampala, as does the US, which offers Britain only intelligence and surveillance. The Government secures the cooperation of Kenya to use its airspace and an airfield to use as a forward staging base. A company of paratroopers training near Entebbe is ordered to deploy to the nearby airport and take it using armed force.

• Outcome: Government forces are sent against Entebbe; a battalion of infantry and a squadron of light armoured vehicles from the new Immediate Action Force arrive in relays of RAF C17 and A400M transporters. For the first time the new A400M (pictured above) does a daylight drop of a company of paratroopers as a “show of force”. Helicopters and armed drones flown from Britain in C17s launch an SAS-led raid to recover hostages. The government is toppled by military officers who invite the British force to support their regime as a stabilisation force. It routs the insurgents and retakes the mines.

• Likelihood: Highly likely

• Readiness: Very ready

BALTIC STATES 2022



• Crisis: Russia’s armed forces have been modernised and a tough president, keen on creating a “Russia Plus”, makes bellicose noises towards integrating the three Baltic states into a federation, forcing them to opt out of the Nato alliance. Suspicious cyber attacks occur on Baltic government institutions and energy resources are withheld as Russia tries to probe where Nato’s red lines lie. A major Russian “military exercise” is about to start on the borders of the Baltic states, involving fast, light-weight tanks, marines and helicopter-borne infantry. Flashpoints also flare in other satellite states from Georgia to Ukraine and Belarus, fomented by a resurgent FSB.

• Response: Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia invoke Article Five of the Nato constitution in which an armed attack on one member is deemed an attack on all. Nato decides to send a division made up of three brigades from Britain, France and Germany to deploy on the borders of the states. The US, with fewer forces now deployed in Europe, remains neutral in the conflict.

• Outcome: Britain’s multi-role brigade is heavy with armour and the RAF deploys Typhoons (pictured above) in Baltic airbases. Navy Astute submarines sneak undetected into the Baltic Sea, listening into Russian military communications while tracking Russian hunter-killer submarines. The carrier Queen Elizabeth, refurbished and equipped with two of the three Royal Combined Air Fleet F35 squadrons, sails in to the North Sea, joined by a French carrier. The fast and overwhelming response demonstrates that Nato is serious about defending its members. A valedictory cyber-attack on Latvia results in Britain’s Joint Cyber Warfare Force penetrating and disabling the Kremlin’s command centre.

• Likelihood: Highly possible

• Readiness: Not ready

[buglerbilly]

General Sir Richard Dannatt on the Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain is at stake

The Strategic Defence and Security Review puts the Services under the spotlight. Planners now have the job of predicting what future enemies we might face; yet 10 years ago, no one foresaw the demands of Afghanistan, says General Sir Richard Dannatt.

By Richard Dannatt, UK Daily Telegraph

Published: 11:38AM BST 14 Sep 2010


British soldiers in Afghanistan.

Britain's future depends on the Coalition making the right choices now, says General Sir Richard Dannatt. Photo: PA It has been a long time coming, but for the first time since 1997 a British government is conducting an apparently thorough review of the nation’s defence and security needs. Strangely, this one started before the general election, when Bob Ainsworth, then Secretary of State for Defence, launched the process with a Green Paper which set out to examine the fundamentals. That was a good start, but he knew there was next to no chance that he would be seeing the process through.

Nevertheless, formal discussions within the Ministry of Defence, and beyond, began to consider the character and nature of future conflict. Without such a discussion, any defence review, especially one conducted against the background of an unprecedented national public financial crisis, would merely have resulted in an unseemly squabble between the three Services and other vested interests. We know we have to do better than that, to preserve the best interests of the defence of the realm, the safety of our citizens and the wellbeing of the Armed Forces on whom our nation depends, and to do so against a fundamentally changed strategic background, so eloquently described by Michael Clarke in these pages.

But the problem of predicting the future is notoriously difficult – shocks happen; witness the Falklands, the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11. As Professor Sir Michael Howard has warned: “No matter how clearly one thinks, it is impossible to anticipate precisely the character of future conflict. The key is to not be so far off the mark that it becomes impossible to adjust once that character is revealed.”

This wise comment leads to the first broad conclusion about this and subsequent defence reviews, namely that they should be regular and routine occurrences, not just put in hand when the government of the day decrees. If we were to adopt such a system, similar to the Americans’, whereby a defence review is held every four or five years, by statute, party politics would be largely removed from the process and our policy, force structure and equipment programmes would be reviewed regularly, leaving us confident that what was being spent on our overall security was relevant to what was going on in the world at that moment.

Critics might comment that equipment programmes cannot be as responsive as such a process would demand, but counter-critics would, quite properly, challenge the overly bureaucratic way that our defence procurement is done. This leads to the second broad conclusion about this defence review – that there is an over-riding need to cut the cost of defence procurement and improve its responsiveness; not just because the existing budget is effectively broke and large savings may well be demanded, but out of a legitimate sense of wanting to deliver better value for money.

So where do go from here? Against a target of announcing the conclusions of this Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) by the end of October within the context of the Coalition Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, the academic debate about the nature and character of future conflict, which in theory should drive the hard financial and equipment decisions, must now be in its final throes. The consensus would seem to be that while there is no obvious conventional external threat to the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, and there is unlikely to be one in the next 10 years, a case can be made – just – that there are states, or perhaps other non-state actors, that could pose a strategic nuclear threat to the United Kingdom or our interests. Thus the maintenance, indeed renewal, of our independent nuclear deterrent, with its associated and dedicated conventional air and maritime force protection units, is justifiable and, in the stated policy of the Government, is therefore non-negotiable. This is the third broad conclusion from this defence review.

This then raises the question as to what are the conventional challenges to our security, to which our scarce resources should be applied? With the absence of a credible threat to our territorial integrity, the skies above our homes need only to be watched and defended against rogue or token attack, while law and order within the domestic community is quite properly a matter for the police and the security services, perhaps backed up by Special Forces in extremis.

Similarly, our coastline needs to be watched but does not need to be defended as such; however, we are a trading nation and depend on the sea for 90 per cent of our overseas trade, so our sea lines of communication do need to be kept from malign interference so we can both trade and eat. This leads to the fourth broad conclusion: that we need Armed Forces, not to protect our security at home but to protect our vital interests on a wider canvas abroad, which takes the argument straight to Afghanistan.

If Iraq was unpopular and the defining event of Tony Blair’s premiership, then Afghanistan is anathema to many; perhaps to most people. On the one hand it is self-evident that it was from the ungoverned space of what was then a failed state that the attacks on New York and Washington were mounted on 9/11, but now? Many struggle with the link between those events, the intervention in Iraq in 2003, 7/7 in London in 2005 and our presence in Afghanistan today – and it is indeed complex. But it has to be seen against the background of the al-Qaeda-inspired manipulation of one of the world’s great religions, intended to restore the fortunes of the historically humiliated who, in their view, have suffered hugely over the centuries.

This is a clash – perhaps not the clash of civilisations to which Sam Huntingdon alluded – but still a serious threat to our ideas and values in this generation and a challenge to which we must rise, both at home and abroad. The trick is to know how to do this in a way that will lessen tension, respect human rights and allow communities and states to determine their own futures and not be bullied.

This leads to my fifth broad conclusion that we – by which I mean Nato, the US, our allies and partners – must put Afghanistan, and by extension Pakistan, on the soundest possible security and economic footing as quickly as possible. This may yet take years, but not to do so would hand a propaganda victory of immense proportions to those who oppose our way of life, our beliefs and our values. Thus, sufficient success in this operation is non-negotiable.

My sixth and final broad conclusion is that we must do all we can not to get into this situation again. Yes, there will be “wars and rumours of wars” but much more effort should go into conflict prevention than conflict prosecution. The cost in blood and treasure of Afghanistan and Iraq should be a lesson to politicians who do not understand that war should only be a last resort, and to the military who must realise that the offer to politicians of a quick success is a false dawn. We do not come home “by Christmas”, but a lot of us do come home in boxes.

So what deductions should be drawn from those broad conclusions? This is where the theory turns into hard cash, and the vested interests shape up. And, of course, that is the tragedy: that otherwise well educated and trained individuals choose not to see the bigger picture but instead fight their own corners. From a military point of view, from the passionate heart that fires every Service chief to do the best for his people and his Service in the best interests of the nation, comes the desire to make sure that his Service is not short-changed. But history shows that in public expenditure debate, dog eats dog, and if the single Service chiefs fight among themselves, it is to the ultimate detriment of their own Services, our defence and the health of the nation.

So there will be winners and losers, but if all have the confidence to believe that overall needs will be re-evaluated every four or five years, by statute, against an evolving geo-strategic background, then today’s losers can become tomorrow’s winners, if that is how it has to be seen. What we spend scarce resources on now has to be relevant to the honest appraisal of how we see things now. If risk is to be taken, it can be taken in the medium to long term, because subsequent reviews can readjust priorities.

To be specific, priority number one now has to be success in Afghanistan and our current operations. This translates into a modest uplift in spending on our land forces – not just the Army, but the Royal Marines and the helicopter, strategic lift and ground protection parts of the Royal Air Force. Priority two is the preservation of our ability to trade and enjoy the freedom of the high seas. Members of the Senior Service need to search their hearts and ask themselves the question whether this is best provided by the lion’s share of our maritime investment going into two large aircraft carriers and their associated aircraft, or whether a larger surface fleet of smaller, less expensive ships would serve the nation’s needs better.

Priority three is the debate about what support to our land and maritime forces is best provided from the air, given that, unlike in 1940, there is no aerial threat to Britain. It is an inescapable fact that the cost of modern fast combat jets is huge. Within the aircraft carrier debate, the cost of the two ships is about £5 billion, but the aircraft that fly off them is £10 billion. We routinely fly some 350 fast jets to keep our pilots up to the mark, but have just eight deployed in Afghanistan. The numbers hurt, so the deduction has to be that we need fewer. Quality is important in a hi-tech world so the priority should go to the new Typhoons at the expense of the veteran Harriers and the ageing Tornadoes. If this means a reduced fast jet element for the RAF and an increase in rotary wing and transport flying, so be it.

This leads the discussion to priority four, the support areas. The tail should always be as lean as possible in order to support the effectiveness of the teeth. There is no serious case to mount a vendetta on the number of civilians employed in defence. The policy over many years has been to transfer jobs from those in uniform to those in suits or jeans in order to reduce the numbers and cost of the manpower of the three Services. But there is a modest case to be made to de-enrich the rank structure of the Services. It is facile, if true, to observe that there are more admirals than ships and more brigadiers than there are brigades, but that does not address properly the complexity and responsibility placed on the upper echelons of defence. There need to be sufficient senior officers to do those things that need to be done, both in the Services, within Nato and the EU and in support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office – sufficient, but not an excess.

A similar argument applies to the existence of the three Services. No one who truly understands the underpinning nature of ethos and pride would argue with any conviction for an amalgamation of the three Services, nor a re-incorporation of the Royal Air Force into the Royal Navy or Army, from which Services it was spawned nearly a hundred years ago. But there are economies to be had – in the size of the major headquarters, including the MoD, in the continued stationing of thousands of soldiers in Germany and in the cost of procuring our equipment. Many of these things are inter-related; if we decide to reduce the number of fast jets, airbases can be closed, the aircraft carriers become marginal, the very expensive air-to-air refuelling contract can be re-negotiated and Army units no longer required in Germany can be relocated to redundant but well-kept, airbases in the UK.

This brings the discussion to priority five, which in many ways should be the top priority – our people. Napoleon opined in his day that “the moral is to the physical as three is to one”. He knew that well trained, equipped and motivated troops were the key to success. His dictum is as good today as it was then. The recent focus on the informal, but vital, military covenant is crucial. Yes, of course, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will go on doing whatever the elected Government of the day decrees, but they will do it with greater enthusiasm, determination and success if they feel that they, and their families and our veterans, are being given a square deal and have confidence in their national leadership.

And here is the bottom-line challenge for this Government. How is the £37 billion overdraft in defence spending inherited from the Blair/Brown government to be accommodated against a headline reduction in the defence budget and the swallowing of the costs of the replacement of the nuclear deterrent within that same budget? It cannot be done and the nation’s security preserved.

I was the director of the Defence Programme and Planning Staff in 1997-98 when New Labour put a good defence policy together but did not properly fund it; it would be even more disastrous if this Coalition government forsook coherent policy and simply put a spending programme in place on the basis of what was affordable, with scant regard for the consequences.

The quality of our lives will be affected by the standards of our schools, hospitals and roads, but the very existence of our nation and its values will be threatened if we are short-changed in defence. This is the stuff of history – on issues so important, a government rarely gets a second chance.

General Sir Richard Dannatt was Chief of the General Staff from 2006 to 2009.

[buglerbilly]

Defence cuts 'could leave us unable to fight a war', says MPs

By Ian Drury

Last updated at 2:27 AM on 15th September 2010

Britain's ability to carry out military operations is at risk because of Government plans to take an axe to the defence budget, a scathing report warns today.

A powerful group of MPs says that current missions, including the war in Afghanistan, would be threatened if ministers made cuts of up to 20 per cent at the Ministry of Defence.

The Commons' Defence Select Committee expresses concern that the Strategic Defence and Security review is being carried out so quickly that 'serious mistakes' will be made.

This could undermine the Armed Forces, threatening the future defence of the realm, the MPs say.

Forcing the MoD to foot the bill for updating the Trident nuclear deterrent would also lead to 'very significant' cuts to the Army, Royal Navy and RAF, the committee warns.

The report comes as the coalition carries out a full-scale review that will set out Britain's defence priorities for the next few years.

It will determine where the spending axe will fall as ministers attempt to tackle the UK's record deficit, with the MoD being told to expect to lose up to a fifth of its £37billion budget.

The Armed Services are preparing to sacrifice thousands of troops and scrap expensive 'big ticket' capabilities such as new aircraft carriers and fast jets.

But the cross-party committee says the strategic review, due to be published in the autumn, is being rushed through 'hastily' without proper consultation with the defence industry, MPs or the public.

The review, the first since 1998, risked focusing too greatly on shortterm security threats at the expense of the long-term defence needs of the UK, the committee warns.

'The capacity of the country even to sustain current in-use capabilities and therefore current operations could well be put at risk by the proposed cuts of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent,' it says.

'The rapidity with which the SDSr process is being undertaken is quite startling. We conclude that mistakes will be made and some of them may be serious.'

The Government is carrying out the defence review urgently to fit in with the timescale of Chancellor George Osborne's spending review, which will set out each Whitehall department's budget.

Failing to properly consult the defence industry before drawing up the SDSr was 'folly', say the MPs.

It also represents a 'missed opportunity to reconnect the people of the country with defence issues' especially in the wake of the war in Iraq.

Bob Ainsworth, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said: 'This report confirms all our fears about this review. It is being undertaken at reckless speed.'

But Defence Secretary Liam Fox said the review 'will not undermine our main combat effort in Afghanistan'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312122/Defence-cuts-leave-unable-fight-war-says-MPs.html#ixzz0zYwVkDD3

[buglerbilly]

Defence Committee reports on the SDSR

A Defence Policy and Business news article

15 Sep 10

The House of Commons Defence Committee (HCDC) published its first report on the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) today, Wednesday 15 September 2010.

The responsibility of the HCDC is to monitor and to hold to account the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies, including the Armed Forces, on behalf of the House of Commons and the people who elect it. The committee's SDSR report represents its initial reaction to the Secretary of State's and the Department's written and oral evidence given before the Parliament summer recess.

The MOD welcomed the report as an important contribution to the debate on issues being considered in the SDSR.

Conclusions and recommendations of the report covered policy context, the SDSR timetable, the National Security Strategy and MOD studies, costing and industry involvement, manpower costs and the Reserve Forces, cost-cutting and reform, consultation and the public, as well as other issues.

The committee reported the following key conclusions:

it welcomes the pan-Government nature of the SDSR, through the establishment of the National Security Council, to set the country's defence needs in a stronger foreign and policy context;

it recognises the Government's need to tackle the deficit to ensure financial soundness, the urgency of the SDSR process and the need to align with the Government's Spending Review;

and it acknowledges the continuing process of internal reductions made to date and structural reform.

The report does, however, outline the committee's concerns. They conclude that the following concerns could lead to SDSR conclusions that are not robust:

the rapid pace at which the SDSR is being undertaken, given that the process for the SDSR is not tried and tested;
the limited nature of consultation with industry and the 'missed opportunity' to reconnect with the general public on defence issues; and the implications of spending cuts and the impact of decisions on funding the nuclear deterrent replacement.

SDSR Departmental Progress

The Secretary of State's and the Department's evidence made clear that we face the SDSR with unavoidably constrained finances. Like all aspects of public expenditure, our future plans will need to be affordable over the short and long term, and the review will look at how to deliver the future strategy for national security as efficiently and effectively as possible. To ensure the SDSR is resource-informed and its decisions are sustainable, it is proceeding in parallel with the Government's Spending Review, which will report in late October.

The first duty of Government is the security of our people, territories and interests. The SDSR will set out how we plan to meet this responsibility. For the first time, we are looking thoroughly and comprehensively at the national security challenges we face and our responses to them in a co-ordinated and strategic way across Government, rather than in silos. The National Security Council is directing the full review of the UK's plans, policies, resources and commitments across all areas of national security.

Past reviews have taken the Department less than a year. Preliminary work on the SDSR began in late 2009 to set the strategic context and frame the pertinent questions this review would need to address. This involved useful public engagement as a contribution to the review.

Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox said:

"Any outcomes from the Strategic Defence and Security Review will not undermine our main combat effort in Afghanistan. The SDSR will address the most immediate threats to our national security, while maintaining the ability to identify and deal with emerging ones. This flexible approach will ensure our Armed Forces can deal with challenges now and in the future.

"The MOD has received over 6,000 responses on the SDSR and related issues. This broad range of views is being considered as decisions are made on how we deliver the future strategy for national security as effectively and efficiently as possible. To ensure the SDSR is sustainable and resource-informed, it is proceeding in parallel with the October Spending Review."

It is clear there will be a lot still to do after the SDSR announcement in late October.

[buglerbilly]

MPs condemn MoD handling of £10bn aircraft project

Use of private finance initiative was 'inappropriate' and officials had no proper idea of total cost, Commons group finds

Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian, Thursday 16 September 2010


A computer-generated image of the militarised Airbus refueling tanker in use. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

This should NEVER have been a PFI..........so-callled SMART procurement in action again! :nest
The fact the plane will NOT have basic protection to allow it to fly into Afghan airports is a joke, a sick joke! :doh

Defence officials have committed billions of pounds to a vital military project without any proper idea of its projected total cost or checking whether it could be deployed in Afghanistan, according to a scathing report by a cross-party committee of senior MPs published today.

The Ministry of Defence earmarked £10.5bn in a private finance initiative (PFI) for a fleet of air-to-air refuelling tanker and military passenger aircraft without considering an alternative, says the report. The MoD wanted to use private finance to keep the cost off its balance sheet.

The MoD is still suppressing financial information about the deal, including data contained in "a lessons learned project", the report shows.

"The use of PFI to deliver a vital military capability like the [Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft] was inappropiate", says the Commons public accounts committee.

It is "simply astonishing", it adds, that the MoD did not decide until 2006 that the aircraft should be able to fly in "high-threat environments such as Afghanistan". Four years later "it has still not decided whether to fit the necessary equipment".

The report continues: "It took over nine years, more than twice as long as expected, to place the FSTA contract ... The last aircraft will not be delivered until 19 years after the procurement began.

"The department did not understand the costs of the deal it was negotiating as it did not obtain access to detailed industry cost data. This meant it could not gauge whether the deal was value for money. In particular, it could not determine whether profit margins were appropriate or the premium it was paying to transfer risk to industry".

The fiasco over the project is "illustrative of a wider problem for the department which if it is not addressed will fundamentally affect its ability to deliver value for money", says the Commons committee, chaired by the former Labour minister Margaret Hodge.

The report is likely to exacerbate tensions between the MoD and the Treasury over military expenditure, which are already heightened due to planned cuts and the insistence of George Osborne, the chancellor, that any renewal of the Trident nuclear missile system must come out of the core defence budget.

Responding yesterday to warnings from MPs that planned spending cuts for defence were so deep they could jeopardise the armed forces' ability to maintain current military operations, David Cameron told the Commons: "Of all the budgets that I have looked at, this is the one where we were left the biggest mess – £38bn over-committed, and also decisions taken that made very little sense at all."

Today's report contains tell-tale footnotes showing the MoD has withheld information relating to how much it cost the ministry to finance the deal, how much it would cost hourly to lease the aircraft, a copy of the MoD's own "lessons learned project" on the deal and alternative means of refuelling military aircraft deployed in Afghanistan.

The proposal is to provide 14 modified Airbus A330s to replace the RAF's ageing tanker and passenger fleet of Tristars and VC10s.

The report notes: "The fact that no other country has chosen to practice air-to-air refuelling and passenger transport using PFI-type arrangements is further indication that PFI is not a suitable procurement route for such important military capabilities".

[buglerbilly]

Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain faces impossible choices in an uncertain world

The Strategic Defence and Security Review is being conducted against a backdrop of bitter arguments between the Services and the threat of cuts of up to 20 per cent, yet it is meant to define Britain’s place in the world and our foreign policy and defence priorities for decades to come, says Professor Michael Clarke.

By Michael Clarke
Published: 11:00AM BST 13 Sep 2010


Britain faces tough choices over defence, warns Professor Michael Clarke. Photo: CHRISTOPHER PLEDGER


British troops board a Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan. Photo: CHRISTOPHER PLEDGER

The Strategic Defence and Security Review is being driven by some powerful imperatives that make the choices facing the Coalition Government appear pretty dramatic.

The Armed Forces are clearly overstretched. They have been deployed more often, more concurrently and for longer than was ever envisaged at the time of the last defence review in 1998. Fighting two long and overlapping counter-insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan was not anticipated in the 1990s and the forces need time to re-organise and re-orientate themselves. Nor was the “security” part of the SDSR remit – responding to terrorism, building up national resilience and cyber-defences – recognised before the September 11 attacks of 2001, but it is now regarded as an intrinsic part of the job.

In addition, the defence establishment has recognised that the current programme is simply unaffordable. The National Audit Office was not alone last December in calculating that if the whole defence programme up to 2020 was delivered as planned, it would leave a black hole of up to £36 billion that could not be funded. Too many “big ticket” legacies of the Cold War were still in the pipeline; something significant would have to give.

The last thing the new Government needed was the knock-on effect of the financial crisis and uniquely high levels of public debt. It is a political judgment how quickly that indebtedness must be reduced, but it is apparent that this review will involve cuts in the defence budget of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent in real terms, on top of any other necessary restructuring.

But, dramatic as all these immediate pressures are, none is genuinely strategic. However, the defence of the UK has arrived at a “strategic moment”. Even if the assumptions underlying the 1998 review had not been exceeded; even if the Iraq and Afghan wars were unambiguous triumphs; even if the defence programme was not unaffordable and the economic crisis had not materialised, the United Kingdom would still face strategic choices unprecedented in modern times.

More than most of its Western partners, the UK is vulnerable to global strategic change. Not since the early 1930s has the country faced a range of developments that generate as much political uncertainty. From the late 1930s to the 1990s, it was not difficult to decide which international developments most threatened this country. That is no longer the case. It is more than 75 years since our politicians had to confront a world that offered so little firm indication of what was strategically best for Britain; and this time we have far less global power to wield in response.

The “post-Cold War” era is well and truly over. There is surprisingly little we can take forward from the Cold War years, despite all the legacies – and weapons – it bequeathed. Nato is not an efficient diplomatic instrument. Nor is the European Union’s fledgling defence arm. These organisations can provide useful cover for national policies; they create some legitimacy and act as a focal point for the smaller nations. But defence and security in Europe are now essentially ad hoc, driven by shifting coalitions of the willing and able. And in truth, the willingness and ability of the European nations as a whole to commit to defence or security has been on a downward curve for two decades.

The UK and France spend around 2.3 per cent of their GDP on defence, against a European average of 1.6 per cent. The UK used to derive great diplomatic leverage from Nato and from being a military lynchpin of the Western alliance in general; but that lever will only bear a small load these days. New crises in Europe are unlikely to be handled by a reversion to any of the old routines.

In the past, these weaknesses have led us, time after time, to try to galvanise European security co-operation by creating a step change in our defence relationship with France. We did it cautiously in the mid-1980s, enthusiastically in the late-1990s, and we are doing it again now. It always works – more or less – among the politicians and leads to some useful arrangements that make for greater efficiency. But down at the industrial and military levels, the grand designs always run out of steam; certainly there has never been anything resembling a military step change. And if it is different this time, it is still not clear that the rest of Europe is in a mood to be prodded, even by a dynamic London-Paris defence axis.

This might not worry us so much if our relationship with the United States was still essentially what it had been since 1941. But it obviously is not. The United States is a continental power with an Atlantic and a Pacific front. It was an extraordinary act of strategic vision on Washington’s part in the 1940s, having been attacked in the Pacific, to respond by sending most of its forces to the Atlantic theatre. We took for granted that the US was a “Europe first, Pacific second” superpower, but with the demise of the Soviet Union that assumption is effectively reversed.

The collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s probably marked the last time the US would be prepared to get involved in any European crisis unless its own global interests were genuinely threatened. And these days, its global interests don’t generally involve Russia. For all its huffing and puffing, Moscow is in no position to threaten Western Europe, and though it might be an edgy neighbour, and a brooding power for those countries that were formally part of the Soviet Union, it is hard to imagine the United States putting much of itself on the line for a European crisis that involved present-day Russia. There is no question that the United States retains major interests in Europe, but it is difficult to see which combination of them the US would feel compelled to defend with the hard power of military force.

The strategic game-changer in the world is not Russia, but China. Second to that is China’s relationship with India. If the UK is to make a really strategic common cause with the United States – something that echoes the special relationship of the last century – it must somehow bring influence to bear on US concerns in Asia, or at least help hold down Washington’s security interests in the Gulf, while the US worries about Asia.

The Obama administration reportedly takes a cooler and more instrumental view of Washington-London relations. The president is probably reflecting reality; in future there will be a lot less sentiment and more hard thinking to be done between our two countries. This may feel uncomfortable, but it is probably a useful corrective. Casting ourselves chiefly as the “transatlantic bridge” between America and Europe runs the risk of offering the US an elegant structure it doesn’t actually want to send much heavy traffic over. Our strategic instincts may still tell us to stay close to the US, but if so, those instincts direct our gaze once again east of Suez.

That east of Suez gaze far outstrips our military capacity to back it up in the way we once did. The Government asserts that there will be “no strategic shrinkage” as a result of the present review. The Foreign Secretary laid out our global strategic interests in a series of speeches over the summer. But these were a long shopping list of ambitions, rather than an audit of realistic means to an end. If the UK is to make common cause effectively with the United States in some key strategic areas that matter to us both – regional stability in the Gulf and South Asia, nuclear non-proliferation, a new strategic partnership with India, pressing to keep global trade free and liberal – it will have to play its high-value military cards when and where it can, but constantly back them up with “soft power” – even higher value diplomacy, private enterprise and commercial ventures, cultural entrepreneurship and some good old-fashioned brass neck. It’s a neat trick if you can do it.

If the Government is serious about keeping the UK in the premiership of global players, there must be some tangible new partnerships with countries that we relegated to “rest of the world” in previous defence reviews. India and Japan are obvious candidates for a new security relationship, as are Turkey and our network of friends in the Gulf. A security relationship with Australia that goes beyond friends and kinship may come to seem important, as will relations with Brazil or South Africa. The previous government’s Green Paper on the defence review spoke traditionally, and somewhat ponderously, of Nato, the EU and the UN as our key partnership frameworks. There is more than a little theology in this formulation. The reality is less tidy and will require the mobilisation of military, non-military, and “defence diplomacy” resources to build the strategic partnerships that could make the biggest difference to us for the coming decades. Ironically, the Commonwealth may come to seem more relevant if we can resurrect it as a strategic framework.

Globalisation has been one of the biggest, fastest, but quietest revolutions in history. Facebook has only existed for six years, but with 500 million subscribers would be, if it were a country, the third biggest in the world. The present global economy would have been unrecognisable in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down. In this still accelerating revolution, the United Kingdom is quite a good player. We accept the costs and benefits of openness, we embrace multi-cultural society, exploit the financial revolution, the hi-tech niches, benefit from advertising, fashion, being socially robust, being “cool”. We benefit more than most when the world economy booms; we suffer more when it slumps.

No one has yet offered a convincing argument that we have to maintain strong military forces to play in this game. Our military prowess is part of our entry fee to it, but that is our choice. Other players gain entry using different currencies. And other big players find they can be prosperous, free, open, and still militarily weak. No one, certainly not the UK, can police globalisation; it’s a phenomenon, not a political system. Loss of political control is the price we seem happy to pay for the prosperity globalisation brings.

On the other hand, the globalisation revolution is not uncontested. Anti-globalisation demonstrators may be an irrelevance, but China and Russia maintain that they can play the globalisation game without being liberal, democratic, or even particularly open. They proclaim a model that is attractive to dictatorships in many parts of the world and which may yet bring the major powers into confrontation. How much of a military stake the UK has in the long-term defence of globalisation, as it presently works, is a difficult political judgment. The present National Security Strategy aims to defend the British “way of life” in this globalised environment. But that is a political piece of string which provides little strategic direction.

So the UK is confronted with a “strategic moment” the like of which we have not faced in three political generations. As in the 1930s, but now for the globalised 2020s, we have to second guess how the United States will interpret its role in the new world. We have to define our relationship to that role, and pay the price to play it. We are not sure how unsafe an enlarged Europe can become. And if it does become a dangerous neighbourhood once again – or a safe neighbourhood with dangerous suburbs – we have to decide how much it really matters to us; and whether to put our faith in Nato-style collective security, or take the consequences of trying to deal with it ad hoc, with whoever will join us. Unlike the 1930s, however, our territory is not under any credible threat, but our complex and open society is vulnerable to terrorism and could certainly be brought down by massive cyber attack.

Our prosperous and free way of life deserves – and requires – defending. That can only be done with adaptation, new partnerships alongside traditional alliances, a great deal of guile and strong political nerves. The problem is not that our leaders fail to see any of this. They can grapple with the strategic environment and get us to 2020 and beyond with a defence policy and a force structure that fits. The problem is rather that the immediate political and financial imperatives mean that they cannot get us to 2015 in any sort of shape. The long term may be difficult, but the short term is near impossible. Unfortunately, the strategic moment is already upon us.

Professor Michael Clarke is Director of the Royal United Services Institute

[buglerbilly]

Decision on £20bn Trident renewal 'to be delayed until after the next election'

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 1:05 PM on 16th September 2010

Decision on Trident replacement 'put off until 2015'

Defence chief's warns - full trident replacement or zero

Any delay to Trident 'would be unacceptable to Tories'

Senior Conservatives expressed alarm today after it was revealed the replacement of the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent could be put off until after 2015.

Ministers are considering delaying the planned 2014 date in a bid to reduce short-term costs and head off a pre-general election political row.

The Ministry of Defence said no decisions had yet been taken on the future of the submarine-based missile system - which is the subject of a value-for-money review.

It has been formally excluded from the ongoing strategic defence and security review but the Treasury has made clear the under-pressure Ministry of Defence budget will have to pay for it.

But Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, a former defence spokesman and chairman of the Commons Public Administration Committee, warned that any delay would be unacceptable to Tories.

He said that putting off the 'main gate' decision - when the main spending on the project begins - would actually increase the long-term costs while casting doubt on the Government's commitment to maintain the nuclear deterrent.

'I don't think this will happen because it would disturb the Conservative Party very, very deeply,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

'This would be the maddest decision of them all. It would immediately cast doubt on whether the Government has actually got the resolve to follow through with the programme at all.

'If you delay, you reopen the whole question, you create uncertainty about how viable our existing deterrent would be and you raise questions about whether we actually resolve to remain the power with global reach and influence throughout the world that we are today.

'It is about what sort of country you want to be.'

The outgoing head of the armed forces also warned today that the Government might as well scrap the nuclear deterrent if the decision is taken to downgrade it.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup said any lesser replacement for Trident would not be 'credible'.

But the prospect of a delay was welcomed by former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell, who said it would provide an opportunity to look again at other weapons systems.

'We are in the midst of a wholesale defence review. You simply cannot proceed upon assumptions that had their origin in the Cold War,' he said.

'It seems to me that it makes a great deal of sense to allow us a breathing space to consider whether a like-for-like replacement - four boats, 192 warheads - is what is necessary for Britain's defence when we know there are other alternatives available.'

The news comes after it was claimed the huge costs involved may lead to Britain being without a constant nuclear threat for weeks at a time.

David Cameron's spokesman refused to rule out the rumoured plan which would see all four submarines in the nuclear fleet in port at certain times to cut costs.

The Prime Minister had previously given assurances that the deterrent would retain its year-round capabilities.

An influential committee of MPs yesterday warned that a decision to defer Trident's replacement would have 'very significant' consequences for future defence spending.

The Commons' Defence Select Committee expressed concern that the Strategic Defence and Security review is being carried out so quickly that 'serious mistakes' will be made.

This could undermine the Armed Forces, threatening the future defence of the realm, the MPs said.

Forcing the MoD to foot the bill for updating the Trident nuclear deterrent would also lead to 'very significant' cuts to the Army, Royal Navy and RAF, the committee warned.

The coalition agreement between the Tories and Lib Dems committed the Government to renewing Trident, but agreed that it should be scrutinised to ensure it offered value for money.

The deal allows the Lib Dems - who went into the general election opposing a like-for-like replacement of the missile system - to 'continue to make the case for alternatives'.

An MoD spokesman said: 'The Government remains committed to maintaining the UK's minimum and credible submarine-based nuclear deterrent, based on the Trident missile system.

'Within the framework of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, a review is ongoing to ensure that the renewal of the deterrent provides value for money.

'It will consider the programme timetable, numbers of submarines, missiles, missile tubes and warheads, infrastructure and other support costs, and the industrial supply chain.

'Once the review has concluded, ministers will discuss and agree the optimum balance of capability and cost.'

Bernie Hamilton, national officer of the Unite union, which has members in the defence industry, said: 'If this report is correct the Tories stand accused of dereliction of duty and a failure to learn from the mistakes their party made in the past. More importantly their failure is threatening thousands of jobs.'

Labour leadership candidate Ed Miliband said: 'I believe the right approach is to include the decision about the replacement of Trident in the strategic defence review, so that we can make an informed decision about how best to maintain the minimum nuclear deterrent that Britain requires.

'I think it's right that we seek to make savings where possible, but this decision by the coalition looks worryingly like a Government putting off the difficult political choices because they are too weak and too divided to take them, rather that showing the leadership and strength to make tough choices in the long-term interests of our country.'

Professor Malcolm Chalmers, of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said the significance of putting off the 'main gate' decision to go ahead and start building the new submarines depended on the length of the delay.

Prof Chalmers, a former adviser to Jack Straw and Margaret Beckett when they were foreign secretary, said: 'If what we are talking about is main gate taking place in 2015, then it's not a very significant slippage but the further it goes beyond that, the more significant it will be.

'The delay can be as a result of both political and technical factors.

'The longer you delay the main gate decision, the longer you delay the entry into service of the new generation of submarines.

'When the decision was taken in 2007 to go ahead with the Trident renewal programme, the working assumption was the first submarines had to enter service in 2024 in order to ensure the existing generation of subs retired when they began to become unreliable.'

He said there was 'a little bit of wiggle room' but a longer delay could raise concerns that submarines would have to be kept in service 'longer than is operationally prudent'.

In a paper published in July, Prof Chalmers said that dropping the requirement that there is always at least one nuclear missile submarine on patrol at sea could make 'significant financial savings'.

He argued that the possibility of dropping this requirement could also provide room to delay the 'main gate' decision.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312484/Decision-20bn-Trident-renewal-delayed-election.html#ixzz0zhI6V5Yd

[buglerbilly]

Carriers decision 'on knife edge' as MoD rules out single vessel

Date: 17 September 2010