Defence review: your say

C Powell

I'd like to understand why we are in Afghanistan. When they were sent it was all announced as some sort of peacekeeping operation (didn't John Reid say that they'd be out after a few months with not a shot being fired?)

If there's a good reason, fine but then let's send the right number of men and equip them properly. To send too few men with inadequate equipment and no clear plan is disgraceful: we're just needlessly sending men to their deaths and there is no greater dereliction of duty by the government than that.

Strapworld

I like the Australian system. What we have now, at the top, are three excellent services fighting each other, which is ludicrous and the politicians and civil servants must love it!

A single command structure for the Armed Services, so that all comanders are capable of controlling the three 'arms' of the NEW single service effectively.

Indeed, a completely new structure whereby the three Senior Staff Colleges combine. The other two remaining could be turned into excellent barracks for the non commissioned officers.

We need airpower. We, as an Island, need seapower, and we most certainly need an enlarged and effective army.

We do need a National security review prior to a full Defence Review, I am concerned that our politicians will place far too much emphasis on the EU. We cannot and must not rely on the EU Countries. We must be prepared ourselves.

A revitalised structure. Just the One Service. 'The Queen's Royal Land, Sea and Air Armed Service'.

Strapworld

I like the Australian system. What we have now, at the top, are three excellent services fighting each other, which is ludicrous and the politicians and civil servants must love it!

A single command structure for the Armed Services, so that all comanders are capable of controlling the three 'arms' of the NEW single service effectively.

Indeed, a completely new structure whereby the three Senior Staff Colleges combine. The other two remaining could be turned into excellent barracks for the non commissioned officers.

We need airpower. We, as an Island, need seapower, and we most certainly need an enlarged and effective army.

We do need a National security review prior to a full Defence Review, I am concerned that our politicians will place far too much emphasis on the EU. We cannot and must not rely on the EU Countries. We must be prepared ourselves.

A revitalised structure. Just the One Service. 'The Queen's Royal Land, Sea and Air Armed Service'.

Jeremy

"...what is needed is a National Security Review..."

What I have to say in this post may be slightly tangential to the subject of your thread, but it is not entirely irrelevant to it:

One of the biggest threats to our national security, integrity and independence is The Extradition Act 2003. This Act enables a foreign power, the United States, to pluck our citizens out of the country (almost at will) with a view to imprisoning them abroad in conditions which are noted only for their sadism and brutality. The current predicament of Gary McKinnon is a case in point. It would enhance our security, our integrity and our independence as a nation if this Act were to be revoked - as a matter of some urgency - by an incoming Conservative government. Indeed, for so long as it remains on the statute books, the Extradition Act 2003 remains a threat - and a constant threat, at that - to the liberty of our people and the independence of our nation.

dexey

We should do away with the RAF.
The Army should have it's own close support aircraft and maintain missile systems, and the Fleet Air Arm should be beefed up.

Robert Simpson

I'd like to see more purchasing off off-the-shelf equipment - the Type 45 Destroyers are a case in point. Costing around double their US Aegis equivalent, they'll soon be put into service without ANY missiles at all, and even once fully equipped, with no anti-surface capability, no cruise missiles and no ABM capability, all of which could be had far far cheaper by buying Aegis destroyers, like the South Koreans and Japanese have done.

In short, I want a larger, more cost-effective military which is more concerned with capability than with trying to prop up a domestic military industrial complex.

I also want to ensure we maintain the ability to fight conventional wars - just as no-one foresaw the needs of the military in 2001, no-one can say for certain what's going to happen by 2011 or 2021. It would be folly to think we can denude ourselves of defences.

Finally, and most importantly, I think the UK is very seriously mistaken to ignore BMD - We could purchase Patriots, SM-3s and THAAD, or some combination of that, to protect ourselves against a future threat from Iran. Given the way it's treated British diplomats, we can't pretend we aren't a target. We are, and we should make sure we can stop a future nuclear strike. Not to consider it would be criminally negligent.

TrtevorsDen

Developments of Harrier are good enough for us and carriers at half the size.

Or buy second and of USA including F14s.

Money saved to go towards reshaped Army Marine and Airborne forces with proper equipment including helecopters and heavy lift.

A 'lower profile' replacement of Trident.

dennis sewell

I could never see the point in these new carriers.... until I met Rear Admiral Chris Parry, who is extremely convincing in his championing of them. He has been proven right before (he predicted Al Qaeda well ahead of the curve), so I hope they listen to him.

Gaelstorm

What I loved was some labour minister saying they were spending £15 billion more on defence than hitherto.
Of course they were; wars don't come cheap!
It would be interesting to compare like with like (peacetime against peacetime)

Chris

We should have armed forces which are designed for the defence of the United Kingdom, not for fighting colonial wars half way round the world.

Gareth

A lazy press has consistently failed to challenge government sophistry on Defence spending. Yes the budget has increased year on year against RPI/CPI but Defence equipment inflation runs at over 8%, the net result is effectiverly a year on year budget cut Go figure!

David Logan

We spend far too much on MOD staff and top brass. We have more admirals than ships. We have far more generals than battalions. We spend far to much on unique kit which takes so long to produce that it is frequently obsolete before it arrives. The Euro fighter has been a disaster and gets more expensive per plane every time the production run is caught.
We must get a bigger bang for our defensive buck. The Australian system sounds attractive if only because it would give us a clean slate where more than 75% of the senior officers can be retired.If we are to remain a serious player in military matters we must restructure what we do.

Kerie

Dexey - where the hell do you get that argument from? Do not suggest cutting the RAF - it is inconceivable that we could have a defence capability without an aerial angle.

How dare Cameron's folk think about slashing Defence? Better lay waste to quangos and the DFID than give anything less than whole-hearted backing to the forces sent to fight wars the rest of us want no part of. Anything less is treason.

Edward Sutherland.

Why can't these so-called "big ticket" items like the new carriers be bought off-the-shelf from the US.Too often the defence budget is being skewed/inflated for essentially employment needs.

Ray

Defence forces are about more than just money and equipment. Hence, it would be foolish to throw away nine decades of hard-won tradition and esprit-de-corps by winding up the RAF, even though with the advent of cheaper, pilot-less aircraft its role will inevitably change.

Likewise, the Royal Navy desperately needs its carrier capability if this country is to retain any pretence of being a player with global reach.

If the savings to pay for all this are to be found anywhere then let us look again at the Trident replacement. Do we really need a 'Rolls Royce' warhead delivery system when a 'Ford Mondeo' version (ie: cruise missiles mounted on a variety of launch platforms) will do an adequate job against the kind of rogue states we are most likely to face a nuclear threat from?

Yorkshireman

Stop wasting billions of pounds on over priced, ineffective, late equipment from the EU.

Trying to create a EU Army and military supplies(Blairs sellout to France for not joining the Euro) has resulted in poor quality, over priced and delayed equipment for the men fighting in Afghanistan. Disgusting.

For the sake of signing up to more EU madness, we put our troops in danger with sub standard kit from our EU "partners".

Stop wasting money on EU equipment and procurement and get Douglas Carswell MP on the defence select committee!!!

Hysteria

Chris - you say "We should have armed forces which are designed for the defence of the United Kingdom, not for fighting colonial wars half way round the world."

Well yes - kinda - but

erm - so where would the actual fighting be then - Deal? Hastings?

Sadly the global nature of the the threat (the bad guys train in - oh - let's say Pakistan as an example) means that you have to have a defensive reach beyond our shores.

Which immediately gets you to a place that recognises we need three arms, integrated with the inteligence and civilian aid organisations and, in extremis, some measure of an ultimate deterrent. ("Trident Lite" if you will)

For those here positing abolition of some of the armed forces, amalgamation etc I would argue that we continue to punch above our weight (whether we should or not is a separate debate) due to the way in which we our structured - it is the unique and special traditions of all three armed services that makes them efficient.

Pat

It's commonly said that generals plan for the last war. Well since that's the most up to date experience available I can't blame them morally for that- but we need excellent decisions, not OK ones.
I've heard many suggestions to the effect that state on state conflict is a thing of the past- despite the fact that its only eight years since we were in such a conflict and needed tanks, carriers, strike aircraft etc. for the gulf war. Not to mention the previous gulf war. Whilst experience in Afghanistan and post invasion Iraq proves that our counterinsurgency capability needs beefing up, I am worried (particularly in our present impecunious condition) that we abandon preparations for a conventional war. We do not know what war we will have to fight in five or ten years time, but we do know that we will fight it with the equipment and organisation decided now. Our enemies will obviously choose the form of war that gives them the greatest advantage and us the greatest disadvantage, its what enemies do.
I am also concerned about the proposals for off the peg purchases of equipment sourced overseas. Whilst I can see great advantage from this (about fifty percent more bangs per buck on simple figures)I am concerned about over reliance on foreign powers. If a cheap supplier of good quality material decides for political reasons not to supply parts or spares for the use which we the British feel appropriate then our foreign policy is automatically subserviant to that of our supplier. This may be the best deal going- but its certainly not the best deal possible.

Dave Brooking

I would go further than the above and negotiate complete integration with the Americans regarding equipment. This would produce commonality of operational techniques (communications for example).

The UK defence industry need not be reduced in size as there would be sharing with projects and offsets.

One example will suffice. Two new carriers are required to keep one at sea (actually in reality 3 would be needed for this. Whereas if this concept were adopted the RN would be a part of the USN rolling programme of re-fit and operational deployment of the Nimitz class.

Justicia

Let's take a sober look at the EU and what it offers us.

A European Army would be horrendously disastrous; whether you want one or not in principle, the practice of merging seperate military traditions and forcefully integrating them would be injurious to the national security capabilities of all nations.

This aside, we really must examine our nuclear deterrent. Yes, the nature of a nuclear threat from nation states is such that we need one. However, and here no doubt roars of francophobic vitriol will come forth, we should be leaving deterrence of Europe to France.

The operation of a nuclear deterrent (let us exclude anyone who would suggest striking first with WMDs) today can only be leveled against an enemy who we know. We cannot nuke terrorists, we cannot nuke insurgents. We can retaliate against a rogue state, and for this France can satisfy that need. Any attack against the UK, even if we exclude EU and NATO obligations, would naturally necessitate a retaliation if there is to be one from France by virtue of simple proximity. The amount of money saved would allow us to equip our armed forces with a) the facilities they deserve if we are to fix the shattered covenant the nation has with the military and b) the equipment, training and research to make our army what it should be: small, elite and effective. This is a perfect oppourtunity to use the EU for good, and neither Europhobia nor false constructs of national defense necessity should stop us from doing so.

strapworld

Dave Brooking- Take your argument to its logical conclusion, and I will join you. DITCH the EU and become the 53rd State of the USofA. Now is the time.

NickW

It is impossible to have a defence review in the absence of any information regarding financial resources. A Public Spending Review must come first.

Another nasty little Labour trick is being proposed.
They will make unaffordable commitments in a Defence Review which the incoming Government will be forced to cut.

Hereford

We cannot nuke terrorists, we cannot nuke insurgents.

True, but we could use the threat of Nuking to cow the states that sponsor them.

Just because we are not facing a nuclear armed enemy does not mean that Nuclear deterrence is not useful.

The one time that Nuclear weapons have worked was against an enemy that had no such capability at all.