Wednesday, December 10, 2014

UK military poised to be destroyed from within.

Thanks Jonathan for the link!

via TheWeek.
Cuts will be so severe that Nato could classify our reduced forces not as an army, but a gendarmerie
If George Osborne is to be taken at his word - and if the Conservatives are returned to power in May – the public spending cuts he is planning will trigger the biggest downturn in Britain’s defence capability we have seen in modern times, and therefore this country’s position in the world.
In short, the British Army could be reduced to around 63,000 personnel – so small it would be classified by Nato as a gendarmerie.
Responsible commentators, including two leading BBC programmes, Newsnight and The World at One, are forecasting between 30 and 40 per cent cuts in the budgets of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That means reducing the current military defence budget of £36 billion to somewhere between £20 - £25 billion.
The cuts have to be this severe because the budgets for health, education and overseas aid are to be ‘ring-fenced’. (The aid budget, managed by the Department for Foreign Investment and Development, will run at £12bn, and will rise as the economy grows.)
In a worst-case scenario, sketched by several leading commentators, the MoD will be asked to lose a total of at least 50,000 military and civilian posts. The Army, already reduced under present policies to 82,000, is likely to lose a further 19,000 soldiers.
Osborne’s pledge to have Britain in the black by the end of the decade makes the undertaking given by David Cameron at September’s Nato summit in Cardiff - to spend two per cent of GDP on defence - sound like sheer whimsy or a cynical deception plan.
Estimates suggest that Osborne’s cuts would require the UK to spend only 1.2 per cent of GDP on defence - below that of France (1.4 per cent) and roughly equal with Italy.
And yet the government has just announced that the Royal Navy is to open a new £15 million base in Bahrain, the first east of Suez since 1971. And, of course, Cameron promised at Cardiff that the second aircraft carrier, the Prince of Wales, is to be commissioned after all.
Further commitments are to be made to the training of friendly forces and the air campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq. (This despite a letter appearing in the press from a disgruntled officer saying that the RAF’s force of Tornados operating over Iraq out of Cyprus are dangerously low on maintenance and spares.)
Also this past weekend, a leak to the Sunday Times suggested that RAF planes and UK ground forces may have to return to Afghanistan to help the newly installed president, Ashraf Ghani, thwart the Taliban offensive on Kabul and in the south of the country.
But if Osborne is to have his way on public spending cuts, Britain will be in no position to offer sustained help in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, eastern Europe or anywhere much else for that matter.
This is mainly due to the government’s insistence that it will stick to current equipment plans, as laid down in the Strategic Security and Defence Review of autumn 2010.

Working from figures and projections by the Resolution Foundation, Francis Tusa, who runs his own independent think tank and journal Defence Analysis, suggests that within a few years the UK will be spending 70 per cent of its defence budget on equipment, meaning a huge reduction in manpower.
As well as cutting the Army by a further 19,000 to a force of around 63,000, the Navy would have to be reduced by 8,000 down to around 20,000 and the RAF by 5,000 to around 27,500. The Royal Marines would be unviable.
In short, the three services will have a lot of swanky equipment, including two new aircraft carriers, but too few personnel to maintain or run that equipment properly. Already the RAF has something in the range of 140 Eurofighters on its books, of which it can man and use about 40.
Now we get to the elephant in the room – Trident. If the projections of 30 to 40 per cent cuts are accurate, the replacement for the current Trident system of ballistic missiles, Britain’s nuclear deterrent, surely has to be written off for good.
Just plain wow.


30 comments :

  1. news today from Stars & Stripes:
    GRAFENWÖHR, Germany — NATO’s Allied Land Command has finally reached full operational capacity, LANDCOM commander Lt. Gen. John Nicholson said at the close on Wednesday of NATO’s largest training exercise since the end of the Cold War.

    That's remarkable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. IIRC, Trident isn't part of the military budget but a strategic system paid straight from the government treasury? So military cuts won't affect it.

    As for "proposed cuts", I doubt he can end run his boss, so he may propose the cuts, but unless their PM wants to look like he's double dealing, the 2% is pretty much a fixed deal. Too many people know of Cameron's promise to keep to 2% for him to weasel out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would not be upset if RAF would propose to lease some of those not used Typhoons to some of NATO nations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. too late for some tho... :))
      i would've preffered the Gripen

      Delete
    2. that is the most surprising part of the story and none of my UK readers are commenting on it. 140 planes and only 40 are actually being used??? how the hell are they going to put the F-35 in service that will be a bigger maintenance hog than the Typhoon!

      something is happening that i'm missing with this F-35 program because the more i look at it the less sense it makes....oh and if this is happening to the UK then imagine what is going on with Greece, Italy and Spain!

      Delete
    3. Spain only flies six

      http://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/defensa/Espana-solo-operativos-Eurofighter_0_2369163065.html

      Delete
    4. Btw: I almost forget, you saw Sol' that info about F-35 "fuel temperature threshold" and if they are refuel with too hot fuel they can have "problems with working properly"? For now all fuel tanks need to be painted white and all operation need to be done under some cover.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Problems from the Financial Crisis are deep, very deep, which is an even larger reason why chasing this F-35 pipe-dream is wishful thinking. Nations need affordable platforms, air, land and sea not overly expensive systems that require delicate handling with expensive budgets.

      Delete
    7. Yes Lease Typhoon from first btach, less capable than F16, but just faster... Even worse if you lease the ones withou cannon... the unique 27mm cannon..

      Delete
  4. Toy Armies. That's all NATO has. The only ones taking it serious are France and the some of the Eastern European members.

    There was the report earlier this summer about the hollow shell Germany has become and now the UK is on the verge of this as well.

    And this is from a so-called 'Conservative' government.

    The F-35 would bankrupt the UK military. It would be limited to the Paras, some infantry battalions and two aircraft carriers flying F35s. Sure, there's the SAS, but it will be cut because it won't have the recruiting pool.

    Forget about Typhoons or the stealthy nEUron Drone. This is the end of the UK as a serious military power, NATO member and capable partner of the US because it wouldn't be able to project force.

    We see all these European governments committed to buying equipment so that on paper it appears they have some muscle, but they don't have the manpower maintain or operate them. It's like the military budget is a job's program and military capability just a PR exercise to scare potential threats.

    Col. Boyd's maxim, "People, Ideas, Hardware.,,,IN THAT ORDER" is haunting



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Western EU HAS the hardware, it's just about "re-activating" them, they also have the money and industry.
      The problem is exactly in the East EU (excepting Poland), where politicians use the Article 5 as an excuse and minimal spending....still soviet equipment, no airforces, no naval force...it's a nightmare...
      Now my country has to ask permission from the EU comision to increase 0,3% from GDP yearly for defense........and it's not sure how it will end...pure BS

      Delete
    2. Interesting to see that Britain could be following the unfortunate route the Dutch are taking. 'Right wing' governments destroying the armed forces.. who would have thought that 20 years ago. Not the peace movement or socialist kill defense, but the overly frugal VVD ( our right wing liberal party ) does.
      Believe it or not, ALL our state of the art Leopard A6 tanks were decommission and are being sold..

      Since money is tight and will remain so, even with renewed threats from the East I do not see budgets regrow to where they need to be. I only see one solution left: combining the military of NATO in to regional militaries instead of every nation having their own little 5 plane air force , 2 ship navy and one and a half tank army.

      On a side note.. not really related except trough money: How can some poorly armed coastguard 'frigate' cost the USA more to acquire then a state of the art 'destroyer' cost the Dutch ?

      Delete
    3. PS. M.C.

      I seriously doubt any country has to get EU permission to increase the budget for defense. What would need permission is an increase of the deficit. So if a government wants to increase defense, without cutting in other places they would need permission..
      An other interesting point is that the biggest debtor in the EU , Greece, has one of the biggest militaries, relative to the size of the economy and population. In other words: its a choice.

      In my opinion the recent threats by Putin both verbally and real should though make the whole of the EU in consort with NATO take a step and increase defense spending, even is it means a slightly higher deficit. A bit of a spending hike would likely also get us out of the economic slump.

      Delete
    4. @Meint

      yes, it's about the deficit, which has been slammed to the ground after we had 2-3% + growth....talking about sabotage....by whom?
      in the EU we have destructive competition, not constructive. they prefer to cut my leg before a sprint race rather than outrun me....the same that preach capitalism and democracy....

      Delete
    5. Bad for Dutch, good for Estonia.

      Ex-Dutch CV-9035NL are sold to Estonia, they can equip a full mech battalion with them. For such small nation it's a huge deal.

      Delete
  5. Apparently their new NATO strategy is to take heat off Turkey by getting ISIS to attack in Europe instead, once they note that a convoy of raggedy HiLux's with Dishkas could take most of Europe in a month.

    Pretty much like it went in 1940.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry I didn't get sh*t from the point you were trying to make ... Have no clue where the similarity is with 1940 !!! Who's is hitler in that comparison and who are Ze Dchermanz ???

      Delete
  6. Do you know what country (one of them) is going to benefit the impending cuts to military funding? ARGENTINA!

    I have never seen a decommissioned aircraft carrier put back to commission so fast!

    ReplyDelete
  7. from my cynical point of view opinion, it seems that the western part of NATO want the Eastern part of NATO to bear the burden on defense from the Eastern Threat. it is like sending your vassal states to do the war for you if it came to that, all while the war destruct the eastern part of NATO while sparing the western part. Basicallly the west european want america and the eastern NATO to bear the burden of blood and sweat while they hang back..

    Just look at the puppet polish goverment being used as an instrument of american foreign policy in ukraine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poland is not a puppet of the US.

      what country are you from?

      Delete
    2. Sol, The following 2 minute on Inter-European & US relations video probably explains everything in regards.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqayC1sR7g

      Delete
    3. Buntalanlucu, you are not Cynical. I think you are one of those Paid Russian/Chinese internet trolls. Except for the fact that those guys talk jibberish which makes them easily identifiable but you have taken a more indirect route in your hopeless mission of getting public opinion against the so called West.

      In case you are Chinese, congratulations on becoming such a trustworthy member of the communist party so as to enjoy the luxury of getting an International Internet Connection and not an Internal China net.

      Delete
    4. Troll, maybe... his allusions towards Poland are rather on personal level. He see us everywhere. That's pretty funny, just thinking that he wake up in the middle of night sweating and scare as shit after the nightmare saying with hysterical voice "Poles, Poles everywhere!" priceless!

      Nah, I think some Pole or Polish descendant put an feet in his ass in the past, or his girl leave him from one of my kinsman. :D

      Delete
    5. That guy is from Indonesia, in case anybody was wondering where that pile of dogshit he wrote was coming from ! Stick to areas closer to home buddy, rather than talking out of your ass ... not gonna comment on content of your MSG, would be giving it importance it doesn't deserve.
      Shas Vader: don't worry mate, take a step back and don't engage unless absolutely sure you gonna burn this MF

      Delete
    6. I had him figured out as either a Chinese troll in Hong Kong or a pissed off Phillipino, but Indonesia sounds more logical.

      Delete
    7. Yep, judging by his handle and the IP address he's using, that's where he's from ... wonder what beef he got with NATO though ... Maybe some Chinese or Mindanao expat in Jakarta, that I can't tell ...

      Delete
  8. Considering the problems the US is having...most self-inflicted, than you LCS/F35/etc...perhaps Britain and the US could help each other using an old term: Lend-Lease.
    We are on the verge of not refueling one of our Nimitz carriers, they are on the verge of canceling their new one.
    Why not loan the British a carrier that once we are both past present economic hurdles we get back. The crew would be mixed US/UK They could slow production on their Elizabeth class without cancelling. We would use the cost savings of their planes and crews to help defer the cost of the refueling. A British carrier would undoubtably be used against ISIS or with NATO forces so instead of Asia being without a US carrier for 4 years, we could take a carrier from the Atlantic and transfer it temporary to the Pacific. The UK gets a carrier and experience and a financial break. The US gets a carrier and a financial break--- win, win.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. because we simply can't afford it. something is going to give with this worldwide defense posture too. we defend S.Korea when they can defend themselves. we defend Europe when they can defend themselves...the list goes on. there is nothing equal about these relationships and i haven't even started talking about the politics involved. i can trust the Brit military but wouldn't trust there politicians to guard a block of ice in the arctic. as painful as it is for our allies, i'm afraid i'm of the opinion of not being intertwined militarily anymore. they refuse to keep up with the latest developments and they simply parrot what we're doing. that's why European military blogs are of little interest. Russian, Chinese, a few Indian, Brazilian but reading European military blogs is simply seeing late news on breaking US developments. they're doing little .... yeah they have a program here or there but on the whole its just a spiral downward. we don't need to rush our own spiral by joining at the hip with them.

      Delete
    2. Actually I am sure they have the same feeling toward us; they can trust our military but not our civilian leadership.
      As for intertwining, the UK would be about the only country I would suggest sharing and I suggested mostly as a means of helping meet both our commitments to NATO. Perhaps a better question is why are we in NATO? So far everyone is talking the talk but no one is walking the walk when it comes to confronting Russia on anything but the economic front. Sanctions yes, but that's about it. And those may not last much longer.
      I get what you mean about European military tech. I find it ironic that the military tech powerhouse of Europe is Sweden. I would rather the US build the Gripon under license than keep plugging away at the F-35. But then look at where the innovation outside the US is coming from: people who have serious national enemies: Israel and India, both facing off against Russian and Chinese technology in the hands of their neighbors. The same can be said of Sweden to some extent. They treasured their neutrality for the last 100 years against Nato and the USSR....although I am sure when pressed the Swedish military would always admit in private they weren't afraid of NATO attacking them just getting caught in the Crossfire.
      That is why the US keeps falling down on the job in procurement: brass and DOD don't really believe we will fight are going to fight anything but COIN operations from now on, so they just buy shiny toys without caring if they work or not.
      When it comes down to it, I guess just hate to see the 100 year old US/UK alliance die because of short minded political wankers cutting where it hurts instead of facing their real challenges.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.