I do not think that the protection the UK or it’s interests abroad has been served very well over the last twenty five years.
In reality UK defence policy has been reactionary insofar always responding to the latest ‘surprise’ and exibits a complete lack of foresight.
Nothing from recent historty suggests that the MOD have ever got it right when trying to predict future scenarios. This means that when the next ‘surprise’ comes we will not have the right equipment to deal with it.
I think our armed forces fell under a critical level about five years ago in to a situation where we have little or no influence with one or more of our more aggressive allies.
It is correct that the introduction of more powefull weapons platforms and better targeting equipment will help compensate for this but only to a certain extent.
Remember the Fakland Islands war (yes I know it is now a long way gone now) We were very lucky but many of the lives of our Soldiers could have been saved if we had more air cover and airborne radar.
Now we appear to be relying on the ‘Battleship mentality’ in the name of type 45 destroyers but no air cover. The destroyers are only a 2nd line of defence. The navy no longer have a first line of defence. Instead we are to rely on the US protecting us but that is no insurance policy.
Remember the first gulf war – we had to rely on about to be retired Buccanears for lazer designation of targets
In more recent years in the former Yougoslavia many of our air missions had to be aborted becouse we did not have up to date targeting equipmnt for our bombs.
What about the most recent Gulf War? We could not even supply our Soldiers properly with flak jackets.
In about 5 or 6 years time the war against terrorism could well be over and when the next ‘surprise’ happens we will not have enough ships or aircraft to deal with it.
What about the war on terrorism. Well we do not have enough soldiers for a start and air cover in Afganistan is still a concern. Up untill a couple of years ago we would have had two squadrons of Jaguars and some of them could have supplemented the Harriers. However the Government likes to conduct war on the cheap.
What about the Territorial Army. The MOD policy is simply unsustainable. They seem to believe that employers are only too willing to let their key staff go away for several months then come back for a short while before going away again. Complete nuts. It is no wonder that the TA numbers are falling However the Government likes to conduct war on the cheap.
Irrespective if anyone agrees with our involvement in Afgahnistan or Iraq personaly I think the government is not taking matters as seriously as it should.
What about the next surprise. Iran?
At the moment current equipment is being phased out to pay for new equipment before it is in full service but eventually we will be phasing out equipment just to pay for the R&D.
As far as privitisation is concerned I am not against it for basic training. Any more and I am concerned. I do not like the airborne refuelling contract. I have serious doubts as to whether we will have enough short notice capacity to react to a serious situation.
As for the Gazelles, 119 in service appears to be quite a lot but replacing them by 20 leased helicopters is a rather low. There must be more to this. If they are being replaced by just 20 other helicopters then what are the other 99 Gazelles doing at the moment? It is pointless using them in hostile areas. Only acfew wpuld be needed for observation purposes. I suspect the it is to pay for the new Battlefield Lynx (upgraded in service existing aircraft) Either way it means less Helicopters.
On the other hand if we will get another 20 Chinook and another 15 Merlin Helicopters to make up the the shortfall in Helicopter support then I am all for it.
I think we should and could pay more for our defence particularly since the spend in proportion to GDP is tiny.
Sign In
