Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 16 May 2012

Robert Gates does the Royal Navy a favour

Wednesday, 8th April 2009

TNR asks defence analysts Who Won and Who Lost in Bob Gates's realignment of Pentagon spending priorities? One party that doesn't get a mention is the Royal Navy, yet the curtailment of the F-22 fighter programme and the allocation of increased resources to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter must be considered good news for the Navy and the Royal Air Force.

Given the (intolerable) pressures on the MoD budget the sooner (and the cheaper) the F-35 is developed past a point of no return, the better. Granted, it seems unlikely (in the present climate) that Britain will really buy as many as 150 of the aircraft, but the development of the JSF remains essential to Britain's future defence capability. Without it the new carriers - the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales - won't have any planes to fly and without the planes there's obviously not much use in having the carriers.

No new carriers in turn dramatically reduces the UK's ability to project force. Consequently, the sooner more money is pumped into the JSF the better it must be for the MoD which, probably correctly, must still fear that the politicians will, as so often before, consider the MoD a sitting duck when it comes to cutting government expenditure.

Indeed, I suspect that there's a decent argument to be made that if future defence spending can have either a replacement for Trident or the carriers and JSF then we should opt for the latter.

Meanwhile, rather predictably, a Pentagon budget increase of 4% this year leads AEI's Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly to accuse the Obama administration of "gutting" the US defence budget. The notion that the US, which will spend $533bn on defence this year (not including the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan) faces a serious threat from any other conventional power is, um, a stretch. The USAF is still going to have 187 of the $140m a pop F-22 fighters, but the idea that it's worth spending any amount of money to prevent the prospect of a single plane being shot down is absurd. It's important to consider pilots' welfare of course, but not at any cost.

But again, the US which currently spends roughly 50% of the global defence budget, is not being "disarmed" no matter what the frothier commentary on the right might suggest. Only in a world gone mad can increases in defence spending be reported as cuts. Sadly, that's the world we live in.

Filed under: Military (271 more articles) , Royal Navy (10 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (7)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

BrianSJ

April 8th, 2009 6:53pm Report this comment

I had high hopes for Gates and he is starting to meet them. He is starting to get DoD spending to align with operational priorities. Given that the best we can expect from the MoD is to copy the US, this is good news on a much broader front than the F-35.

ndm

April 8th, 2009 9:23pm Report this comment

-- Indeed, I suspect that there's a decent argument to be made that if future defence spending can have either a replacement for Trident or the carriers and JSF then we should opt for the latter.

I would really like to see the MOD explain under what circumstances the British nuclear force could be used. I think the ONLY reason for Britain to have a nuclear force is to provide cover for the use of US nuclear weapons as a joint use of force. Given that the US leases the Trident missiles to Britain it is not as if Britain could start popping them off without the express permission of the US President. Indeed, I would furhter argue that "express permission" is really a euphemism for "order."

porkbelly

April 8th, 2009 10:37pm Report this comment

Although Gates did gut missile defense.

TrevorsDen

April 9th, 2009 2:27pm Report this comment

Politically Britain might not want to use nukes without asking first - but operationally it could.

But really this post is a load of rubbish. On the one hand it says the USA does not need expensive state of the art fighters but then is pleased that Britain is going to waste money on them.

F14 15 16 and 18's are more than suitable for the UK - by the posters own logic.

And wasting billions on aircraft carriers that cannot fly conventional aircraft is risible and criminal. How will these carriers deploy any of their own long range airborne early warning aircraft?

The writer shows crass ignorance.

The UK cannot afford theses carriers and cannot afford the hugely expensive aircraft to put on them. So much so that it has had to cut back on the number of destroyers designed to protect them.

Their may be an argument for the RN having aircraft carriers and planes and protective escorts and a marine force to 'project'.

Current policy is not it.

ndm

April 9th, 2009 6:03pm Report this comment

-- But really this post is a load of rubbish. On the one hand it says the USA does not need expensive state of the art fighters but then is pleased that Britain is going to waste money on them. (TrevorsDen)

Someone really needs to look at the price difference between an F22 and an F35.

-- F14 15 16 and 18's are more than suitable for the UK - by the posters own logic.

I'm sure Britain could round up some Sopwith Camels from an air museum. Indeed, I think I saw a photo of a Spitfire currently available for a fwe million pounds, way below the "street price" of $135M for an F35.

-- Politically Britain might not want to use nukes without asking first - but operationally it could.

I'm sure all British Prime Minister's would like to believe this. I suspect, however, that New York City, for example, is not even targettable by a Trident missile.

Owen Morgan

April 10th, 2009 1:21am Report this comment

Mothballing the rest of our surface fleet, to pay for the carriers, certainly makes no military sense, but having two carriers makes none, either. Just to be able to have one carrier operational at all times, you need three of them. I believe we no longer have any fixed-wing capability in the RN, with the premature retirement of the Sea Harriers, so who is going to train the next generation of Royal Naval pilots, if these carriers ever get built?

All in all, given where the carriers are going to be built (i.e. not in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland), it's not hard to see that the only strategy allowed to influence the order of the carriers is Brown's re-election strategy.

ndm

April 10th, 2009 6:55pm Report this comment

-- who is going to train the next generation of Royal Naval pilots, if these carriers ever get built?

I suspect there is someone, somewhere in the World who knows how to fly an F35. Just a guess, of course.

-- All in all, given where the carriers are going to be built (i.e. not in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland), it's not hard to see that the only strategy allowed to influence the order of the carriers is Brown's re-election strategy.

Yeh. labour's re-election is predicated on winning that last Conservative seat in Scotland.

Post comment