Forces Forum: Greater Cooperation in Defence?
May 22nd, 2008 by Defence Team — Forum
 We are all well aware of the strains currently facing our Armed Forces and the shortages in essential equipment that have been highlighted both in the media and on the floors of both Houses.
Although we still need to see more from our allies in efforts in Afghanistan in particular, it is clear that with a limited defence budget that is not set to get any bigger; over £1.2bn spent on Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) to meet immediate demands in 2007 and 2008 alone; and key equipment needed on the front line we need to be asking ourselves a few questions and would like you to give us some of your thoughts:
- Should we be working more closely with our allies in the European Union?
- Should we be buying or leasing equipment off the shelf to meet immediate demands? What and from whom?
- How can we most effectively work with our allies in defence cooperation?
- If we develop closer ties with Europe, does it mean we can still maintain good defence relations with America or is it an and/or choice?
2 comments ↓
It’s not that we don’t spend enough on ‘defence’. As a % of GDP we are up there with the highest spenders amongst the ’stable’ democracies. We spend on the wrong things. Glamour projects. A case ( not a very strong one) CAN be made for the £4bn aircraft carriers & associated Typhoons. It would be foolish NOT to retain a shipbuilding capacity for large vessels.(How Finland came to dominate LNG ship & cruise liner building when we pioneered both is another sad & sorry story). But the Trident replacement - worth about £80bn, is an utter nonsense serving no conceivable purpose unless we foresee going to war with the USA.
Then we have 5yrs (longer than WWII) of futile, illegal & unnecessary intervention in Iraq,largely to satisfy Blair’s vanity. Cost about £1bn a yr & rising & no end in sight. If we are going to overthrow tyrants why not Burma? There are plenty as bad as Saddam that we suck up to. And if it’s breach of UN resolutions & possessions of Weapons of Mass Destruction then Israel has to be a prime candidate. What utter nonsense the Iraq adventure always was.
This money re-deployed would more than satisfy the real needs of our service people.
Re specific questions - yes we should seek to strengthen the EU & distance ourselves from automatic agreement with the US. That does NOT mean spoiling good defence relations with the US. It is simply being realistic. The ’special relationship’ has been a myth for over 50yrs. Andrew Marr’s brilliant ‘History of modern Britain’ exposed very clearly that the US did NOT ride to our rescue in WWII. It followed its’ own self interest. Why not? We should just do the same.
I find it hard to see how MoD is going to co-operate better with our European allies when it has insuperable difficulties in co-operating with itself. Defence procurement in this country is hopelessly broken, and has been for a long time. Why do you think so much is being spent on UORs? The rest of the procurement system simply does not work, and all the managementese piffle about “Smart Procurement” cannot hide the fact that the UOR process is effectively the only part of defence procurment that still works (see Bill Kincaid’s books “A Dinosaur in Whitehall”, “Dancing with the Dinosaur” and “Dinosaur in Permafrost”). Our infantry did not even have an adequate light machine-gun, arguably the most essential single item of infantry equipment, until Minimi was procured as a UOR for Operation Granby. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. I happen to think we need a bigger defence budget, but regardless of how much we spend, we need to think deeply about some better way of using the defence budget than the current method of playing “capability ker-plunk” until it is discovered that the last bit of overstretch was just too far.
A few ideas that might save us a few bob:-
1. Admit that the QinetiQ sell-off was a farcical mistake, and stop propping up QinetiQ with pointless consultancy work in an attempt to conceal the fact.
2. Abolish the “independent” nuclear deterrent. As Field Marshall Lord Carver said when it was new, “Trident — What the bloody hell is it for?”
3. Stop the “Network-Enabled Capability” boondoggle, and admit that having lots more computers and telecomms is never going to be an adequate substitute for boots on the ground.
4. Stop dishing out enormous contracts to dodgy contracting companies like EDS to make a mess of things like the forces’ pay.
5. Cut down the RAF dramatically, and seriously consider whether we still need an independent Air Force. Air defence of the GB is a task that was essentially consigned to the “too hard” tray in the 1950s. The strategic bombing role for which the RAF originally claimed the need to be independent vanished in about 1968. There is no reason that fixed and rotary wing transports cannot be operated by the other services.
All the best,
John.
Leave a Comment