LordJimIf the F-35 enters service before it has completed its full test programme, I assume this will continue to be conducted at the relevant military testing and evaluation centre. However who picks up the bill for any modification needed to aircraft in squadron service, the contractor (LM) or the Military? If it is the latter then is this a way to fudge the budget and hide additional costs by using a different budget, logistics/support as compared to procurement?
LordJimI am getting confused by my own arguement. The “Group” will hold the funds agreed by the Government, that it calculated were needed to carry out the Governemnts policy. Here is how I see things working;
a. Government decides that the country’s Defence Policy is to be “A”
b. The “Group” works out that to carry out “A” the Military is going to need “X” amount of resources.
c. The Government decides “A” is unaffordable and therefore proposes a reduced policy “B”
d. The “Group” revises the resources the Military need, now to carry out “B”, totalling “Y”
e. The Government decides “Y” is affordable and therefore “B” becomes the official UK defence Policy.
f. The “Group”, with funding in place, begins raising the neccessary orders, reorganises resources etc, to allow “B” to the effectively carried out, through tasking DE&S and Main Building with the required actions.
What is important is that without a public change in defence policy, the funding for “B” is guarenteed. The “Group” also has oversight of DE&S and industry to ensure that programmes are efficiently managed and that the required resources are delivered on time and budget, with the power to act if any organisation fails in its tasks. This is one of the core reasons for having Industry and the Civil Service as part of the “Group” to simplify the commercial aspects and ensure contracts placed by DE&S are effective and tight.
If through unavoidable cost increases the cost of “B” exceeds the agreed finding then the “Group” reports to the Government. If the Government decides to maintain policy “B” then additional funding is made available there and then. If not then the Policy has to be publically changed.
This prevents Government from delaying, reducing or other meddling with defence resources without a public adjustment in policy. The Military is properly resources and knows what it can carry out, allowing it to effectively advise the Government when asked to carry out operations.
LordJimRegarding my American friend, he used to get really upset when I would say that his right to bear arms was an antiquated idea for a time the US didn’t have a large standing army and needed a large militia.
By the way in the US he owns a FN FAL, HK MP5A2 , Colt 45 Auto and Colt 357 Python to “Protect” him and his family plus a collection of antique firearms in working order and I did have some fun when I visited.
LordJimBut unlike the Defence Select Committee, this group would actually hold the purse strings and decide what was needed and what would be the support costs. Therefore the Government has to consider its asperations and is unable to say one thing in public but only fund a part or delay equipment to reduce costs in year.
I know there are some pretty big holes in my position but there is a need for a redical shake up as to how defence is managed as the current system is leading us toward to bad old days of Empire where we would send a small force, it get badly beaten up so we send a better equipped force to try to solve the problem, come home and the same happens the next time. War is said to be an extention of Politics by other means and the primary role of any Governemnt is the defence of its people. You cannot conduct wars or run a military on a just in time or just enough basis as this Government has done since 1997. You need capacity as well as broad capabilities with the tail able to properly support both peacetime and wartime needs.
Sorry I am standing in my pulpit again
LordJimI admit defeat on the Total War debate. I think my train of thought was more along the lines of the Weinberger principal that Von Clauswitz. Regarding GWII, yes we did commit more troops than GWI but if you compare the size of the two coalitions there is a huge difference between GWI and GWII. In fact the lack of troops was a factor in the shambles that began after the war was “Won”!
Going back to my theory on defence, the word “Quango” is incorrect as if you read my initial statement I said the group was to comprise of MPs from all maior parties, the Military, Civil Servant, Industry and independant advisors. It would have no say in Defence Policy, but would be a check to ensure the Military was able to carry out the Governments policies. The Government would still decide how much to spend on defence but the cost of a given policy would be in black and white so they would have to decide on which policies were affordable and which weren’t. This would hopefully result is a match between policy and resources and greatly reduce the mad rush to place UOR etc at the start of any operation
Some of the arguements put forward remind me of those I had with an American friend who when questioned about their Constitutional right to bear arms kept backing up is arguement by saying the one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was to ban private ownership of firearms, and that an armed population is the only way to prevent a dictatorship in the US! I know Blair was “Presidential” but do we really think the UK could become a Dictatorship?
LordJimOn another subject, it was found after the Falklands war the the Super Etendards could not effectively operate from the 25May so limiting it aor group to Skyhawks.
LordJimI believe the two T-42s the Argentinian navy operated had MM-38 Exocets mounted on top of the hanger (Initially two then four) and the two french designed frigates/corvettes also carried the system (four each) as did the 4 Allen M Sumner (four each) class two of which were escorting the Belgrano, as was the sole Gearing FRAMII Destroyer (Four).
If both groups had managed to get within range of the Task force they had quite substantial firepower available, but they had no real answer to ther SSNs which were shadowing both groups.
LordJimAs you have al gathered by now I do find it difficult to be totally objective on this subject. The Civil Service historically has been the professional arm of government, providing the continuity in departments and educated advice. However over time, especially the last few decades it has become very politicised which has removed this check on the governemtn at the time allowing for errors to go uncorrected. This applies to all departments but in the military the senior officers have also become politicised creating a double whamy.
This government more then most has adopted a devide and rule policy with the three branches of the armed services leading to internal fighting. Yes this has always been true but it has got worse recently.
I would agree that my definition of Total War regarding GWI was not entirely true but I still think it is the nearest we can get to it in the current climate. There were clear aims and goals. Clearly defined ROE. And overwelming force was used. The same cannot be said for GWII.
I also agree that soldiers always grumble they haven’t got enough kit, but when a government knows it is going to be committing the troops to operations and knows there are shortfall, it should do everything possible to fill these in a timely fashion, not wait for the body bags. As for the berrets in Basra that was a C@@k up where Army traditional doctrine met poor overall risk assessment, but that is a bigger debate.
I am going to stick to my view that whist it is proper and correct for the elected government to decide policy on the role and use of our armed forces there must be an independant check to ensure that there are sufficient funds to have a military of the right size and eqipment levels to meet what the policy requires.
LordJimThe “Quango” as you described would not have any say in Military policy, how the countries armed forces are committed. That is the sole responsibility of the elected Government. What the “Quango” role is is to ensure that the Military is of sufficient size and has the right equipment to carry out the Governments policy.
At the moment the opposite is true with the size and equipment level of the Military totally out of step with the policy the Government is pursuing.
The problem with have a mainly military illiterate public is that when the Government makes mistakes on military matters and casualties result, it is the military who get blamed.
War should only be a last resort but if it is the option chosen then it must be executed with the maximum commitment to achieve clear aims and goals. “Limited” wars are a political creation, easily shown by comparing GWI and GWII. In GWI it was total war with a solid set aims and goal and overwelming force was used to achieve this and allow a measured exit strategy. In GWII a high tech limited approach was taken with limited aims and goals which did not extend beyond invasion leading to the opperation dragging on for a further 6 years. Yes there were other factors, but the US and UK wanted the war done with minimal assets, minimal costs.
The main problem is that current UK Governent especially has seen the Military and Military action as a PR tool showing the UK is still a major player in the world. It has committed our Men and Women to operations we have not been equipped for, nor have they provided sufficient funding. Because of the lack of understanding by the “Military Illiterate” public they have been able to put up numerous smoke screens of spin to cover the real facts.
If you want to go to war you have to pay for it, if you don’t want to spend the money you don’t! If this governemnt had been in power in 1982 they would have sent the Task Force but with only one carrier and half the support and troops, one to keep costs down and two because the other half would not have existed.
As for trident, although I believe in a strong military, trident is a dinosaur. No sane country would use nuclear weapons and we are protected by NATO’s/the US umbrella. Even unstable countries would not directly use them relying on third parties but without a clear target who would we retaliate against. The vast majority of world powers do not have nuclear weapons, given our situation, concentrating on conventional and unconventional capabilities seems the more appropriate policy to follow.
We through our elected representatives have a duty to the Military. If we expect them to go into harms way for our protection then then should be properly funded and equipped, anything less should be criminally negligent!
LordJimI thought the F-35B’s internal bays could only house a 1000lb weapon as against the 2000lb for the A and B variants.
Out of interest what are the comparable unrefueled ranged for the F-35, Typhoon, Rafale and F-18E/F allowing external tanks for all except the F-35 as this removes its major advantage being VLO.
LordJimThe idea of an all party body containing politicians, civil servants, the military , industry and independants would be to prevent party politics hindering the process. Majority voting would be the principal behind the decision making to facilitate this.
Remember the policy is decided by the government in this senario, this facilitating body comes up with what is actually needed to fulfill that policy and what costs are involved possibly giving more than one option. so the government decided britain still needs a nuclear deterent, the body provides the option to replace trident with a similar system for X amount or SLCM for why amount clearly stating the pros and cons of both. But it is the govenment that decides which to proceed with but its reasoning is transparent as are the costs.
Therefore there can be no more keeping programmes in limbo or reduced to a snails pace through lack of funding as for a programme to be initialised its funding is already secured, and only if policy changes will the programme be affected, but again this is in the open and the government would be publically accountable having to explain said change in policy.
As for programme management well that’s a different kettle of fish
LordJimThat is my worry. I often wish Defence was not the responsibility of the government but more by a permenent all party body which also includes the Military, industry etc. Government would set the policy but this body would decide what was required to fulfil it. They would present the Government with the budget requirements and either the Government accepts or has to change policy. Result the means match the requirement. Never happen though!
LordJimGiven that all parties are trying to avoid talking about defence during this election I think they will try to keep it as low key as possible after. The last thing they want is the SDR to end up saying that they have to not only maintain current level of spending but actually increase it!
LordJimI think you mean Type 45!
Anyway this subject has been around the block a few time already but I do agree that the “B” compromises the whole design but then again the need for stealth totally goes against any premise of K.I.S.S. I know many think that stealth is the only option for future high intensity conflicts but I believe it is a niche capability. For starters I cannot see a high intensity senario for at least the next 10 to 15 years where the UK will be involved. Even then if things go down the toilet we will not be alone.
Western Militaries a fixated on high tech toys at the expence of capacity. You need to get the numbers right before you move ahead with Hi tech programmes. In the case of ISTAR there is a arguement but a piece of equipment can only be in one place at a time and will need deep maintenance some of the time.
The UK especially needs to increase its capacity. The Typhoon is being targetted for cuts as many ground pounders believe it is too expensive, yet we have it in service and the infrastructure is in place to support it but without the additional aircrasft from T3A/B we will not have enough to operate effectively.
The F-35B is too complicated and compromised. there is still time to fit the CVFs as CTOL and this would be cost effective. We could hook into the US training and support infrastructure which would deliver substantial savings plus the “C” will be cheaper. The RAF could get involved with the US UCAV programmes to provide them with an eventual first day striker.
To increase capacity for the RAF I would either buy additional Typhoons or a pinch the Grippen NG
So trying to get back on point the F-35A should make a reasonable F-16 replacement and the F-35C a reasonable F-18C/D replacement. For the F-15 well the F-22 fills that slot but not in sufficient numbers. As for a solution, well for at least 80% of operations a new F-15 would meet all requirement but I cannot see that happening.
Finally put the A-10 back in production with all weather capability and offer a second seat. As they say “Build it and they will come!”
LordJimI think you will find modern tanks especially western designs are very survivable against anything but a similar tank. Modern armour like Dorchester on the Challenger II is very resistant to RPG and ATGW attacks and there are cases in GWII where CR2s survived many direct hits. Ad modern Active Protection Systems (APC) like Trophy and such like and the balance of power is back with the AFV. The Russian have developed many APCs in the past and fitted them to their tanks. THis is probable one of the areas they intend to improve on the T-90.
Sign In
