Butter, Butter and no Guns - Labor hangs the RN out to dry...

[Spino]

Found these links whilst perusing the Current Events forum at wargamer.com.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...24/narmy24.xml

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Admiral: 'tinpot' armed services
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:37am GMT 24/12/2006


Britain's beleaguered Armed Forces are in danger of being turned by the Government into a "tinpot gendarmerie" incapable of defending UK interests, according to one of the country's top military figures.

Defence cuts and financial infighting at the Ministry of Defence are threatening Britain's status as a world power, said Admiral Sir Alan West in a blistering attack on Labour's defence policy.

Sir Alan West: Government is risking British security

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, he said the Government was risking the future security of British interests by reshaping the armed forces to wage long-term "anti-terror" campaigns in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sir Alan, 58, said the MoD was behaving "like these tinpot countries" that fail to invest in major equipment programmes, and spend defence budgets on running rather than developing their armed forces. "That way is a recipe for disaster for a defence force that has to do all the things that Britain may have to do in the next 50 years," he said.

In 10 years' time, the threat facing the UK could be something "far more dangerous than terrorism in central Asia". He added: "All we could be left with is an Armed Forces that is effectively a gendarmerie. And I suppose we would retire to our island and hope that no one gets to us."

Sir Alan's comments follow recent criticisms of Government treatment of the Army from General Sir Richard Dannatt and General Sir Mike Jackson, the present and former heads of the Army respectively.

The latest attack comes amid speculation that the MoD is about to delay or even cancel its "Carrier Strike" programme to build two aircraft carriers by 2015.

Sir Alan, who retired as head of the Royal Navy this year, said he now feared that the £3.5 billion he had ring-fenced for the project was under threat from MoD officials trying to "undermine the programme" so that the money could be used elsewhere in the cash-strapped department.

He said: "The carrier programme is the jewel in the crown of the strategic defence review. Yet there are officials within the MoD who are casting lascivious looks at it. There is no doubt that the rats are out there having a nibble. If Britain wants to remain a world power and to operate with a deal of freedom around the world, these two carriers are vital."

Sir Alan also criticised the Army for not "going through the pain" of addressing its own financial problems in the way the Navy had done over the past few years. He described the Army's attitude towards cost-cutting as "atrocious" and accused senior officers of attempting to "raid" the Forces' overall equipment budget in an effort to solve its own financial problems.

More bad news...

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20070103.aspx

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Britannia Flees the Seas
January 3, 2007: Continuing budget problems have already forced Britians Royal Navy to mothball (put into inactive reserve) 13 of its 44 warships. Now it has been decided to mothball another eight, and to cancel construction of two Type-45 destroyers. That will leave only six new Type-45s, plus two new aircraft carriers being built. The government is also considering closing one of the three bases the navy maintains. The budget problems are caused by cost overruns in procurement problems for new ships (destroyers and nuclear subs) and aircraft (the new Eurofighter), as well as training costs associated with troops being sent to Afghanistan and Iraq. The government believes it can get away with these cuts because, well, the U.S. Navy is more powerful than all the world's navies combined, and a close ally of Britain. So if there's an emergency requiring warships…

At this rate the RN will become an exclusively 'brown water' navy capable only of defending the home waters against illegal contraband and unruly marine life. Sure, the UK could retain a few ballistic missile submarines as a last resort life insurance policy but if the carriers get scratched who is to say the boomers won't too? Basically one of the few truly 'proactive' naval powers in the world is now on track to rely entirely on its most trusted ally to not only to help police and secure the world's sealanes but to project power and protect it's own national interests. Shocking, especially in light of the fact that Japan, a nation currently prohibited by its constitution from engaging in 'proactive' power projection, possesses the second most powerful navy in the world. And unlike Europe you can bet your collective a$$es that Japan has contingency plans to become a decidedly pro-active naval power should China's saber rattling turn into saber swinging.

Slightly off-topic rant...

Thanks to similar measures taken by the other left-leaning governments of the wealthier European nations the world's sole superpower that everyone just loves to hate will eventually be expected to assume responsibility as the world's de facto police force (as if we aren't already). Ironic isn't it? We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. All the negative buzz about the US being the sole superpower and taking unilateral action and yet technically speaking we've practically been given this responsibility by wealthy nations who can afford to keep modest sized militaries but simply choose not to. Eventually the only difference between labels like 'unilateral action' and a 'coalition of the willing' will be whether or not US troops get fancy 'UN seal of approval' patches and pins to put on thier uniforms. Eventually the US will be the only nation expected to reliably enforce the UN's bidding (again, as if we aren't already). And non-Americans wonder why the average American gets in a tizzy when talking about the UN. Seriously now, Iraq aside, if you expect Americans to willingly risk their soldier's lives to help the UN and Europe save the world from itself don't be surprised when we start complaining about being the only ones on the front lines and begin disregarding the UN entirely. I guarantee that if the wealthy nations of Europe (and other nations from around the globe) were to rely less on the US and put more effort into the creation and sustainment of armed forces that can do more than simply protect their borders then US foreign policy would probably be alot less cavalier than it seems to be right now. What would Europe do if the US navy was downsized to the point where we could barely protect our own interests around the globe? What if we could only ensure the safe passage of our own trade vessels in international waters? Would Europe withdraw from its socialistic shell to protect its own interests abroad or would its respective economies simply try to take into account the yearly losses due to factors such as piracy and regional instability?

/rant

Anyway poor old Nelson must be spinning like a top in his grave...

[Banquo's Ghost]

You're making some rather substantial generalisations, not least that Europe is one socialist hive-mind, and that there is anything left-wing about the British New Labour party.

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, in spite of the public rhetoric, there are European governments that see a significant economic advantage in the Pax Americana and would like it to succeed. This is one of the side-effects (oh and there are so many) that the neo-con project never considered.

The EU after all, is primarily an economic endeavour (with some political aspirations) not a military project. And it recognises that the primary threats to Europe's well-being will be economic not military - terrorism, for example, is something we have a lot of experience with, and it's not defeated by aircraft carriers.

But don't worry, Tony Blair wants so much to buy a nice new bunch of submarines from the US with really BIG BOMBS.

[lars573]

It's funny really. All, and I mean all, of this happened to Canada's military 30-40 years ago. The budget was cut and cut and cut some more. New Destroyers weren't built and the aircraft carriers were junked. Tanks were mothballed. New parts weren't bough. So that now our Seakings have a nasty habit of falling out of the sky. Now taking almost a Brigade to Afghanistan took all our availble active troops.

[Spino]

You're making some rather substantial generalisations, not least that Europe is one socialist hive-mind, and that there is anything left-wing about the British New Labour party.

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, in spite of the public rhetoric, there are European governments that see a significant economic advantage in the Pax Americana and would like it to succeed. This is one of the side-effects (oh and there are so many) that the neo-con project never considered.

The EU after all, is primarily an economic endeavour (with some political aspirations) not a military project. And it recognises that the primary threats to Europe's well-being will be economic not military - terrorism, for example, is something we have a lot of experience with, and it's not defeated by aircraft carriers.

But don't worry, Tony Blair wants so much to buy a nice new bunch of submarines from the US with really BIG BOMBS.

I never meant to paint all of Europe with such a broad brush but taking into account the general political and economic trends of the last 15 years you can see where things are going. Watching Spain's reaction in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings spoke volumes as to how other European nations might react to similar pressure and attacks. Exchange a terrorist attack on national soil with more organized and aggressive piracy directed at European shipping in the waters of S.E. Asia and I'm inclined to believe that many European nations would, barring US intervention, be content with a policy of pacification rather than confrontation which, in the Darwinian scheme of things, only encourages a predator or antagonist to be even more aggressive. More importantly if Europe were to suddenly abandon its minimalist philosophy regarding military spending in order to address an impending conflict or crisis the preparation or 'build up' period would require so much time as to ensure failure.

Pax Americana certainly has its advantages but one of the disadvantages is that it can create an atmosphere of resentment for all parties involved. Those who enforce Pax Americana feel resentment it in that they believe they are risking their lives for those who share none of the risks and those who benefit from it feel resentment in that they have little control over how policy is enforced and/or how they will actually benefit from it.

[yesdachi]

It's funny really. All, and I mean all, of this happened to Canada's military 30-40 years ago. The budget was cut and cut and cut some more. New Destroyers weren't built and the aircraft carriers were junked. Tanks were mothballed. New parts weren't bough. So that now our Seakings have a nasty habit of falling out of the sky. Now taking almost a Brigade to Afghanistan took all our availble active troops.

And you need any of that stuff for…

[BigTex]

Pax Americana is already here. It's been here since the end of the cold war and the scraping of most nations militarys. The problem being those without much of a contribution seem fit to critisize the policy.

It is peace through America, not peace through America with help from France.

Mostly agree with you here Spino. Your predictions will more then likely come to pass.

Pax Americana.

[rory_20_uk]

Yup, used to be Pax Britannia, but things change.

Although there is a need for a small amount of high tech hardware, most of the time at the moment the threat is very low tech foes.

Although America is leading the way of long range, hands off approaches with the only side effect that due to unintentional collateral damage things in fact get worse, the better approach is for more people in the area.

Of course that this is mainly in relation to the Army, although the same can be said of the Navy

I don't see the use of one massive vessel especially with the state of modern missiles and forthcoming combat drones.

Many smaller ships allow presence to be applied in several areas at once, and whilst they'd not be able to intimidate many nations, they would be able to pose a significant threat to modern day pirates.

So, increase the size of the fleet, get some more grunts into the army and increase the size of the army.

[Xiahou]

Although America is leading the way of long range, hands off approaches with the only side effect that due to unintentional collateral damage things in fact get worse, the better approach is for more people in the area.

I wonder what you're basing that on. You seem to be claiming that there is more collateral damage in current conflicts with modern technology/training than there used to be in prior wars. This clearly isn't the case.

[Tribesman]

The problem being those without much of a contribution seem fit to critisize the policy.

It is peace through America, not peace through America with help from France.

Ah of course , completely ignoring French help .
The one real time in the past few decades France has not gone along with the plan or helped out was when they said invading Iraq on false pretences without UN backing was a really bad idea .
And guess what , you should have listened to your allies

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Stuff like this just makes me want to cry. We have budget problem because we are fighting two wars. Therefore A seperate budget should be created for fighting those wars. Simple. We could probably afford to double defence spending, even then id would be less than the US, I expect.

Maybe if Blair had done national service he's be less keen to cut our collective ball off.

[Pannonian]

I wonder what you're basing that on. You seem to be claiming that there is more collateral damage in current conflicts with modern technology/training than there used to be in prior wars. This clearly isn't the case.

Precision bombing is good if you know what and where to bomb. In counterinsurgency, which is going to be the main kind of warfare 1st class militaries are going to be involved in for the foreseeable future, this isn't always the case. Actually, more often than not you can't be sure. So the old-fashioned method of getting someone to go in and have a look is going to be better than relying overmuch on improving missile technology. For one thing, the bloke pointing the gun will have a rough idea of what or where he's shooting at. More importantly, if he does make a mistake, the damage done will be less extensive and thus more easily rectifiable. Unless the shooter goes psycho and empties his magazine, a bullet will do less damage than a missile.

Ask Banquo for more details on the subject. He was part of the most successful counterinsurgency effort of modern times.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Pax Americana is already here.

Not to be trite Tex, but I think it's missing the Pax bit.

I never meant to paint all of Europe with such a broad brush but taking into account the general political and economic trends of the last 15 years you can see where things are going. Watching Spain's reaction in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings spoke volumes as to how other European nations might react to similar pressure and attacks.

I know you didn't but the political tides in Europe are remarkably complex compared to your own country. It is too easy to make generalisations that mislead, just as Europeans are wont to charactersise the USA as one-dimensional.

The trend over the last 15 years has in fact been towards more right wing government. Even nominally left-wing governments are unrecognisable as such to an eye of say, 20 years back. And as your conservatives used to believe, Euro-conservatives are tight-wads with the public purse. Military spending is seen as an easy cut, because the right-wing can point to the US as guarantor. It is in fact the European left who want to be distanced from the US - though this rarely translates into extra spending (in France, ironically for your point, the pride to be separate from US leadership has meant they have the political desire to spend on their own defence!)

You misunderstand why Spain changed governments after Madrid. It was not a desire to give in to terrorism, but anger at the way the government lied about who was responsible. Like the UK, Spain has ample understanding of what one has to do about terrorism, having lived with it for 30 years. Their latest attempt at making political progress has come unstuck, largely because they thought they could treat ETA with contempt after the ceasefire. This is a lesson they could have learned from the British in Ireland, but no-one ever seems to want to talk about how that terrorist problem was solved. Spanish hands will be wringing now, but they will be back at the negotiation table in a couple of years.

This is not apppeasement, but dealing with reality.

As for resentment and America's role, all I can say is your government chose the role, and has to deal with it. I strongly suggest that if US citizens feel resentful, they might elect someone next time who understand the nature of partnerships as opposed to vassals.

[lars573]

And you need any of that stuff for…

Just in case. A military capable of you know being able to fight a war is a nessisary insurance policy every sovergin nation needs.

[Grey_Fox]

And you need any of that stuff for…
Just in case. A military capable of you know being able to fight a war is a nessisary insurance policy every sovergin nation needs.

That's ironic coming from somebody who thinks a soldier sacrificing his life for the greater good is a moron.

"We need them but I still think they're fools"

[BigTex]

Not to be trite Tex, but I think it's missing the Pax bit.

Any of the great Paxes did not mean complete peace. It meant peace through whichever world power. That meant there was always war, but they were on the small scale. Pax Romania was kept by raiding, waring with countless germans, persians, nubians, numidians, iberians, celts, picts etc. Paxes are a period of overall peace, with no massive conflicts, with no world war's, with no clashes between the powerful countries. We have that, we've had it for awhile.

Pax Americana is here, its been here. With it in the past decades has brought leaps in technology and the sciences. Truly a great age.

[lars573]

That's ironic coming from somebody who thinks a soldier sacrificing his life for the greater good is a moron.

"We need them but I still think they're fools"

That's not what I said, at all.

[PanzerJaeger]

Not to be trite Tex, but I think it's missing the Pax bit.

As was Pax Romana and Pax Britania...

[Pannonian]

Any of the great Paxes did not mean complete peace. It meant peace through whichever world power. That meant there was always war, but they were on the small scale. Pax Romania was kept by raiding, waring with countless germans, persians, nubians, numidians, iberians, celts, picts etc. Paxes are a period of overall peace, with no massive conflicts, with no world war's, with no clashes between the powerful countries. We have that, we've had it for awhile.

Pax Americana is here, its been here. With it in the past decades has brought leaps in technology and the sciences. Truly a great age.

Aren't you talking about the nuclear peace here? That particular peace as brought about because there were 2 mutually balanced superpowers, each capable of destroying the world. As a result, neither dared overstep the mark, resulting in decades without major wars. After that ended, the world's only remaining superpower gave us 2 enlightened presidents who worked through international agencies to bring peace wherever they could. Then came Dubya. I suppose a Commodus had to come along sooner or later, but couldn't you have given us a few more wise emperors first?

[BigTex]

Aren't you talking about the nuclear peace here? That particular peace as brought about because there were 2 mutually balanced superpowers, each capable of destroying the world. As a result, neither dared overstep the mark, resulting in decades without major wars. After that ended, the world's only remaining superpower gave us 2 enlightened presidents who worked through international agencies to bring peace wherever they could. Then came Dubya. I suppose a Commodus had to come along sooner or later, but couldn't you have given us a few more wise emperors first?

There are two minor conflicts at this point in time. Neither of which has caused many casualties. There were far more conflicts with the first President Bush, involving much larger forces then these have. With the victory against the USSR, only one superpower remains, which none can overthrow. Conflicts happen in any Pax, but as I have said they remianed small. IIRC wasnt there a massive near complete revolt in most british colonies during the Pax Britania?

[Pannonian]

There are two minor conflicts at this point in time. Neither of which has caused many casualties. There were far more conflicts with the first President Bush, involving much larger forces then these have. With the victory against the USSR, only one superpower remains, which none can overthrow. Conflicts happen in any Pax, but as I have said they remianed small. IIRC wasnt there a massive near complete revolt in most british colonies during the Pax Britania?

When was this?

[Redleg]

When I first read the title I thought the discussion was going to be around Register Nurses, butter and a certain type of labor that leaves one hanging out to dry...

Image my surprise to discover its about the Royal Navy.......

[Orb]

I hate our government.
I don't know why, but I do.

[Somebody Else]

Delian League ---> Athenian empire
NATO ---> ?

[JR-]

our glorious UK gov't in its infinite wisdom has decided that Britannia no longer needs to rule the waves.

this is of course a terrible decision.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/savethenavy/#detail

"The MoD is planning to mothball almost half the Navy's 44 warships to cut costs. This money has been wasted, amongst other things, on a war in Iraq we can never win and that should never have been started. The government misled the public and the house to justify it and now we are paying a heavy price. The RN frigates are among the most potent weapons we have. When this is done who will be left to stop illegal immigrants from landing on our shores? Who will seek out and capture drug runners? Who will retake the Falklands when Argentina decides to invade again? As it is we already have 13 warships it would take 18 months to get into action. Act now and sign this petition, for these decisions have almost certainly already been taken. Support the Navy, once these ships are scrapped or sold we will never replace them. Britannia will no longer rule the waves."

[KukriKhan]

With respect, Peregrine_Tergiversate, I'm gonna merge this post with the other thread ("Butter, Butter...") as contributory to the topic, rather than have two competing threads.

[JR-]

no problem.

as i wrote elsewhere:

This really is a dreadful decision if confirmed.

The Gov't commissioned the Strategic Defence Review in order to find out what duties the Royal Navy would need to perform to secure the Realm, and what resources the Royal Navy would require to achieve this aim.

The SDR concluded that an escort force of 32 escort warships (destroyers, frigates, and potentially cruisers), in addition to the two proposed carriers would be necessary to achieve the desired end.
www.parliament.uk/commons...98-091.pdf
It is worth noting that we are already down to 25 escort warships, so technically the Gov't has already torn up the SDR.

During the Cold War the Royal Navy was configured primarily to contain Soviet Submarines in the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap in order that the Atlantic shipping lanes could not be closed thereby preventing Operation Reforger from shipping in vast quantities of men and materials from the US to halt a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Other primary duties included the UK's stategic deterrent, and maintainance of an ability to act globally in support of military operations.

This resulted in a very large number of specialised anti-submarine-warfare frigates (ASW),and a significant number of anti-air-warfare destroyers (AAW), which together could act as mini-flotillas for independent operations around the globe.

Currently, we have a much reduced ASW role resulting from the end of the Soviet naval threat, and a declining number of surface warships resulting from the post Cold-War 'peace-dividend'. The unhappy result of these twin problems is that Britain now has a naval force ill-configured for current duties, and too small to dispatch independent mini-flotillas for global duties.

One possible solution to this twin problem is the re-introduction of the Cruiser class to the Royal Navy, a single vessel that is large enough to provide global reach, and sufficient self-protection from submarine, surface and air threats that it can act independantly of any supporting vessels.
There was such a project under the research & development moniker of; Future Surface Combattant (FSC) which was sadly cancelled in 2004 for 'cost reasons'. I understand that it is being reconsidered for the 2020+ timeframe, arguably far too late.

At the risk of playing fantasy
-fleets I would humbly suggest the folloing force mix of surface warships as eminently achievable, and very sensible in my opinion.

08x T45 AAW Destroyers (start: now)
12x T24 ASW Frigates (start: 2012)
04x T25 C2 Frigates (start: 2014)
08x T65 Global Cruisers (start: 2018)

This would provide the 32 warships required to meet the SDR, and would do so in a flexible manner that would provide proper escorts for large carrier/amphibious task-forces, as well as maintain the Royal Navy's historic global role.

This is not an unachievable goal, in fact it is both eminently achievable and utterly essential. Why then do we pursue this ridiculous notion of an anti-terrorist coastguard?

regards

[Duke Malcolm]

IIRC wasnt there a massive near complete revolt in most british colonies during the Pax Britania?

I'm sorry, but I don't recall any such thing in the Pax Britannica (British Peace, not Britain Peace...)
But we are not here to discuss the effectiveness of, nor indeed whether it really is the Pax Americana.

HM Government has never paid much attention to what its commissions have said unless it is particularly favourable to them to do so...

[InsaneApache]

Originally Posted by BigTex
IIRC wasnt there a massive near complete revolt in most british colonies during the Pax Britania?

Only in the American colonies.

[lars573]

There are two minor conflicts at this point in time. Neither of which has caused many casualties. There were far more conflicts with the first President Bush, involving much larger forces then these have. With the victory against the USSR, only one superpower remains, which none can overthrow. Conflicts happen in any Pax, but as I have said they remianed small. IIRC wasnt there a massive near complete revolt in most british colonies during the Pax Britania?

No. Don't forget the Pax Britannia only lasts from 1815 (end of Napoleonic wars) till 1852 (start of the Crimean war). During that time the only revolt in a British territory I know of is the Upper Canadian rebellion of 1837. Which consisted of 1 rabble rouser and a bunch of drunks from his local pub. They tried to march on province house and got shot by the militia for their trouble. Duration, 1 day.

[lancelot]

What I dont understand is- we have the 5th largest economy in the world approx and the approx 20th largest population.

Why on earth cant we afford all of the bloody ships we want?!?!! What are we doing that is constantly forcing cuts here there and everywhere?

Smells like gross negligence of our resources and finances to me...please someone, tell me- what is wrong with our country?