sealordlawrencePerfectgeneral, exactly as I suspected. You have produced a huge list of things that you would like, yet you have provided absolutely no threat which requires it. So present us with an actual threat to UK national security that requires an increase in defence spending. Every military in the world could provide such a list of wants but it is irrelevent without justification and that is what has yet to be provided.
All you are saying is that defence spending is relatively low and so needs to be raised, that is simply a ridiculous argument. Present a viable threat scenario and then we can discuss what is needed (that is not already in place) to face it. Until such a point your list is utterly meaningless. Just becouse not much is being spent it does not mean that more should be.
One of the most basic principles of defence procurement is that it should be informed by threat, you have not informed us (I will continue to use the plural whether you like or not, your decision to criticise my language is merely demonstrative of the weakness of your argument) of a threat.
sealordlawrenceNo problem, I’m happy to ramble on this one but it’s not really my area except in reference to WW2 so apologies if my thoughts are a bit random.
My first thought is rather than concentrate on a single ‘target set’ why not concentrate on a ‘tactic set’?
Was it Rommel who said “the best form of defence is attack”? Well I tend to agree but only if you add that “the best form of attack is defence”!
In WW2 at one time Bomber Command accounted for 25% of all British production so for there to be any advantage it must have had to account for at least 25% of all German production (oversimplification since Allied/Axis etc.) but did it? Germany undoubtedly lost production to bombing plus devoted huge resources to producing AAA (plus ammunition), radar and fighters (and lost negligible amounts to enemy action) while the frontline strength of Bomber Command (1000 aircraft) was wiped out every few months (yes, oversimplification again, sorry). Was this a sensible ‘tactic set’ to employ against a ‘target set’, the U-Boat menace for example?
Very few WW1 targets differ significantly from WW2 targets, with the possible exception of ‘oil targets’ (fewer and WW1 forces less reliant on them anyway), but the WW1 bombers are hopeless in comparison, Germany is big, far away and the weather rarely on the side of the attacking bomber.
Also unless 1000 bombers are assembled in secret and employed at a stroke will Germany sit by and let “military logistical and tactical installations” be molested? What would your response be; AAA, defensive fighters? And so to protect the bombers, offensive fighters, fighter sweeps, close escorts? And for that how many fighters, 500, 1000?
Wouldn’t the maintenance of such a force in such circumstances possibly outweigh their benefit to the ground offensive and hand the ‘tactical initiative’ to the defender as in the ground war?
That is actually an exceptionally good ramble. When I have a bit more time I will prepare a longer post on the development of strategic air defence in World War One to see how effective it would/could have been against such a force. The World War 2 example is very important and in many ways is illuminated by World War 1. There does seem to be a creaping and expanding revision to history that argues that the Allied Strategic Bombing effort in this camapaign (especially against Germany) was largely a waste of time. I would not go that far myself but I would agree that the cost/benefit analysis does raise some very serious questions. I have heard it argued that Allied strategic bombing was the WW2 equivilant of of western front attacks, ie merely an effort to maintain the image of the offense.
All of this leads me back to the idea that sub-strategic operations may well have been the best way forward, especially given the timescale and the already intrinsic role air power would have played in Plan 1919.
sealordlawrence(1) I said that this was the worst underspending since the early 1930s and you harked back to before the first world war to ‘prove’ that chiefs of staff are always speaking out in public.
– wiki rumour(2)This may be the view from the treasury, but the MoD has an unique role that is the first duty of any government. There is a big difference between haggling for more and pleading for at least the minimum.
(3)The reason no one has itemized the things 3% would be spent on and why they are needed is that it is an enormous task. You ask a lot, but I will try to compile a list of the major areas of shortfall. It may take me a while, so please be patient. Please don’t refer to my debating style as ranting. I find it an offensive term in this context. 😎
Again, explain why 3% is needed? We are certainly not in the worst funding state since the 1930s that is just an absurd statement, Sandys? CVA-01? Knott defence review?
The fact is that the UK armed forces are in a strong position, Trident renewal has been confirmed, the CVF’s ordered, the largest SSN force in Europe etc etc etc etc.
You do not need to itemize a list you need to explain a threat scenario, you seem to be obsessed with defence spending for the sake of it and that is just pointless. Unless you are actually defending against something it is a waste of time.
I do not care if you find the phrase ranting offensive, becouse without actually providing a reason why defence spending should increase that is all you are actually doing.
‘We want eight and we wont wait’ is important becouse it shows relativity. At the time the debate was genuinely seen as one of national survival, without eight dreadnoughts it was percieved that the Germans might tip the balance and be able to overwhelm the RN and cripple the UK. This is important becouse it is spending directed specifically to a recognised threat scenario. The point being that you can not create a usable itemized list without a specific set of threat scenarios. So far nobody here has given a threat scenario that constitutes a genuine threat to UK national security. Thus your itemized list is irrelevant.
An example: Some people here have falsely argued that Russia represents a clear and present threat. However to prepare for that the UK would need to develop the most advanced strategic defence system the world has yet seen. A combined air defence, anti-ballistic missile and anti satellite system protecting a true nuclear triad. Firstly this would cost far more than your meaningless 3% figure and secondly it would be utterly useless in Falklands style conflict. This has happened before, such a strategic defence system was found to be well beyond the monetary capacity of the UK in the 1950s/60s, thus it was never built. And the Falklands, had it have come a few years later, would have shown the near uselessness of a dedicated strategic defence system
So in conclusion, unless you can enlighten us as to what the UK actually has to defend against, do not even bother posting your list as without a genuine threat scenario it will be just as meaningless as the 3% figure.
sealordlawrencematt, Gripen-NG is being offered to India because the earlier version of Gripen that was being offered was very similar to Tejas in performance parameters. The Gripen-NG is closer to F-16 and being only a concept it cannot be chosen over the Tejas.
Now regarding other contenders, the Eurofighter, Rafale and F-18 have very similar range-payload specifications as the Su-30 MKI i.e. max non-ferry range of nearly 1400-1600 kms and max. weapon-load of 8000-9000 kgs (max. weapon-load not at max. range). The same may be said of the MiG-35, which is nearly the same size and weight as the Su-30, however with a lesser payload at 6000 kgs (as per some sources : 5500, others 6,500 kgs).
The F-16 is already operated by the PAF and thus cannot be chosen by the IAF. The Gripen-NG is a “drawing board” concept only, and it would be unjustified if the IAF entertains such on-paper ideas from foreign firms without giving a chance to the Tejas or the MCA. Instead of regressing toward making Tejas a trainer, HAL might consider making an NG version of Tejas to bring it on par with F-16.
Though true that Tejas is yet to obtain an IoC, by the time that it does in 2008-09, it can be hoped that the IAF considers it for the MRCA role also.
Gripen-NG is not a drawing board only concept, SAAB has said they are going to build and fly it.
sealordlawrenceWe need US defence spending in order to get lots of military equipment around the world, but leave the War Management to the Brits and things will end up in better shape.
In summary to the posts above, you can always tell an American, but you can’t tell him much.
Once again a doctrine issue, and I am afraid to have to say that British self confidence with regard to COIN operations is now misplaced. The surrender and retreat in Iraq being the foundation but reinforced by what can only be described as a monumental shift in US doctrinal thinking in the last twelve months, the pupil is now exceeding the teacher.
sealordlawrencethe british interceptor that was 90% completed as a mockup, the remains of which are in storage at cosford. also the north american XB-70, and the similar avro 730 was it??? (not sure about that one)
I believe that you are refferring to the P.1121, the remains at cosford are not of the mock-up.;)
The Avro-730 would have been epic.
sealordlawrenceI agree totally.
Where we disagree is the strategy these 1000 aircraft should use.
First of all, sorry to reawaken this thread.
With all due respect I am not sure that we do disagree. My contention is that had these aircraft have been used for a single purpose, be it sub-strategic (ie against German military logistical and tactical installations outside allied artillery range) or orientated solely against German naval bases, that in one of these roles the bombers could have had significant impact. However it is also my contention that anything other than a single target set would have diluted the effort to the extent that it would have been wasted.
sealordlawrenceBut havent the sweeds offered india development work for the newer longer legged Gripen N or what ever increment that beautiful little plane is at now?
I can not comment on that as I simply do not know. I have no doubt that the Gripen-NG will be an excellent aircraft (I am big supporter of it) but it is still essentially a lightweight.
sealordlawrenceThat’s why they developed a nuclear warhead for the S-200…
Hey SOC could I ask you opinion on the subject of this thread, you seem to be our resident Russian missile expert (I must confess a degree of jealousy;) ). This whole subject has me confused, I think I have made all the evidence fit but something just does not seem ‘right’?:confused:
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=Sens;1198609]
You got the idea. On the Allied side there was no shortage in quality assets and numbers. But that behaved in a WWI style and was surprised by the swift German advance, which took not care of the flanks as it did in 1914, contrary to all “well-kown military wisdom”. There was no time left to learn that lesson in time except for the British. Just a part of all forces at hand took part in the fighting then. Ashamed by the result, that opponent had to be superior in number and quality assets to achive that and till today there is little intrest to face that reality. From the German side it was a big gamble, which payed-off, but I am not proud of that, because the wrong ones did won that battle.
Exactly, the worst thing that ever happened to the western allies was Germany collapsing in 1918. Had it have not we would have witnessed the execution of the most advanced peer rival military doctrine the world has yet seen (to the extent that everything since is merely a copy of it), the result would not have been the Armistice but the near complete destruction of German fighting power on the field of battle through the use of the ‘air-land’ battle. Not only would this have largely prevented the stab in the back theory but it would also have instilled the correct doctrinal ideas in the minds of the allied armed forces.
The lesson of 1940 is not one of defense spending or how many of this and that one should buy, it is rather about doctrine.
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=hawkdriver05;1198574]
You are wrong in stating that the western allies were better armed than the Germans. The allies did have more tanks, and some of these tanks had better armor protection and better firepower than German tanks……which in no way makes them “better”. German tanks were much more “fightable” (for want of a better word) than either the S35 or the Char B1bis……..one man turrets would just not cut it. The Brit Matilda 2 was the best allied tank, and had its day at Arras, but there were nowhere near enough of them. The French had just 3 flawed armored divisions that were too new to accomplish much. As far as the air war went…….the D.520 was outmatched (just) by the BF109E and again, there werent enough. The Hurricane could hold its own, and the Spitfire wasnt commited to France. German tactical doctrine was far greater than the French Army’s and they had better morale. But the allies being better armed “in most respects” is simply not true.
You can debate to your hearts content about who had the most powerful armed forces to your hearts content, at the end I will still regard myself as right and you as wrong. However the fact is that the allies did not lose France for lack of defence spending or equipment, they lost it becouse their doctrine was BS.
By the way, it is true that the allies were better armed.;)
sealordlawrenceSL, the Gripen could offer all that a souped-up F-16 could, including Israeli/Indian equipment if the IAF so desires..the airframe is a generation ahead of the F-16, and the cost, considering the offset record of Saab and the order size, should be pretty affordable.
with weapons like Meteor, MICA, IRIS-T, Saab Bofors / MBDA Taurus KEPD 350, Saab RBS15F anti-ship missile, and an assortment of dumb/smart bombs mean that the weapons could be sourced from a non-US entity.
The Gripen is a considerably smaller aircraft, although I dont doubt what you say. The fact is that despite all the bitching the American offers are technically good solutions.
sealordlawrenceUnless Japan and Germany were invited to join the permanent members? I take your point that it would be unfair to give them a free ride, but don’t they anyway at the moment?
Again to do what? What are you going to spend this money on and what are you going to defend against?
sealordlawrenceAll here agree that we should talk softly and carry a big stick – no post advocates all-butter, Quaker disarmament. Thread issue is that the price of preparedness is less than the cost of weakness. Well, yes: how much is enough? S741 and SLL are debating the logic of 3%, and pg commends that burden for the Big Five, which would protract the oddity of WW2 victors subsidising the losers. Right in UK’s backyard, it has been irritating to watch Ireland flourish since 1973, its Defence spend close to zero, enjoying the Cold War umbrella of its neighbour (me) spending much, to my economic, competitive detriment. I can’t afford to have tax-free Zones and carry any stick.
What lies at the other side of the hill? Germany’s emergence in 1935, Japan’s in 1905 as a Naval Power better than the Czar, and on 7 December 1941 as a Hawaiian one better than USN, were undetected. So: carry a big stick, just in case. Does real-time intel-tech affect that lesson from history? New capability does indeed takes a decade to create, but so does a new Threat. Does Open Skies enable us to lower our posture? We have allowed Russia to overfly us, to sit in SHAPE, generally to be part of our gang…because she reciprocates. This changes the paradigm. If we invited China, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, in on the same basis, what then?
Well put as usual ken.:)
sealordlawrence😮
2.2% of GDP is the least prepared we have been since the early 1930s. If this is adequate, then why have so many retired chiefs of staff spoken out and joined the UKNDA (which is calling for a defence budget of 3% of GDP)? This is an unheard of step taken by these expert military figures. If funding is adequate, why do you suppose they have chosen now, after all these years, to speak out?
They have always been speaking out, since the very dawn of time, do the words ‘we want eight and we wont wait’ mean anything to you?
The armed forces are just like any other faction of government, that is they are perpetually engaged in a tussle for money.
3% is a meaningless figure unless you actually quantify what you are spending it and thus far, for all the ranting about preparedness, no one has actually specified why it should be spent and on what.
Sign In
