UK military problems & policies

[davidbfpo]

Interesting to see that the BBC and Daily Telegraph both have articles today asking this question, albeit with different headlines:

1) The BBC:

Are UK bombs making a difference in Syria?

Later rather pointedly:

It is of course still early days. But given the limited number of UK air strikes it begs the questions: why was the government so keen to expand the air strikes to Syria, and why the agonising over a vote that appears to have changed relatively little?

Link:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35166971

2) DTelegraph:

RAF bomb raids in Syria dismissed as 'non-event'
Since MPs voted for war over Syria RAF Tornados and Typhoons have mounted only three strike missions

Later citing a regional SME, Jon Lake:

Britain’s air campaign in Syria so far is basically a non-event which can have had little, if any, impact on the balance of power on the ground.

Perhaps the RAF has a far better role to play, the MoD says so:

The Ministry of Defence said that the RAF’s contribution to reconnaissance over Syria is more significant, with some reports that it is providing up to 60 per cent of the coalition’s entire tactical reconnaissance capability. It declined to specify the number of reconnaissance missions flown, however.

Having merged in a thread which asked 'Can the UK-US still work together' to this main UK defence thread, it is a coincidence the question is being asked again.

[davidbfpo]

Devastating analysis of the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier programme; yes the one where the ships float minus any aircraft (F-35 Lightening). A few things I'd quibble with:http://cimsec.org/21192-2/21192

There was gossip that their building was 100% political as Scottish shipyards were involved and the builder, British Aerospace, had "stitched up" the contract so tight cancellation would be more expensive than building them.

[Granite_State]

If you haven't read that pretty devastating polemic on British defense procurement and BAE, I urge you to do so.

[davidbfpo]

Granite State,

Thanks I missed that book! Amazon UK shows it was published in 2007, with good reviews:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkey...+and+Dinosaurs

For USA readers:http://www.amazon.com/Lions-Donkeys-...+and+Dinosaurs

[Granite_State]

Trident may seem to David Cameron to be a very useful weapon for attacking Jeremy Corbyn. But does it keep Britain safe?

Actually, no. There is a good, hard, patriotic argument for getting rid of this unusable, American-controlled monstrosity before it bankrupts us and destroys our real defences. And lazy, cheap politics shouldn’t blind us to these facts.
************************************************** ***********
WE do not even control Trident, relying on the USA for so much of its technology and maintenance that we could never use it without American approval. How independent is that?
Meanwhile the Army is visibly shrivelling, demoralised, ill-equipped, historic regiments hollowed out and merged, experienced officers and NCOs leaving. Something similar is happening to the Navy, saddled with two vast joke aircraft carriers whose purpose is uncertain, even if they ever get any aircraft to carry. The RAF is a little better off, but not much.
This is caused mainly by the giant bill for renewing Trident, which will probably end up more than £100 billion, at a time when we are heavily in debt already. If there were any obvious or even remote use for it, then maybe this could be justified. But there isn’t. We could easily maintain a small arsenal of H-bombs or nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, just in case, for far less.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....-of-money.html

Pretty persuasive to this Yank.

[Red Rat]

Of course it is recent accounting innovation to bring Trident into the core defence budget. Previous nuclear programmes were kept separate simply because while their strategic utility was not questioned, neither was their lack of tactical utility.

The problem with Hitchen's analysis is that he is basing the utility of Trident on the world now, not the world in 20 years time. Having started my erstwhile military career facing 3rd Shock Army on the Inner German Border and then less than 15 years later finding myself with German Fallschirmjaeger on the Tajikistan border operating alongside Uzbeks against the Taleban, I am not sure I would want to make that prediction.

[Firn]

Of course it is recent accounting innovation to bring Trident into the core defence budget. Previous nuclear programmes were kept separate simply because while their strategic utility was not questioned, neither was their lack of tactical utility.

Certainly any such drastic change in budgeting raised eyebrows, as consistency is for very good reasons a key principle in accounting. Such a shift should have a much better arguments on it's side as the previous stance supposedly also had its pros.

There is no doubt that facilitating the ill-conceived and poorly executed austerity policy of the recent government was a major factor in this decision. Maybe supported by the ability to show 'strong British commitment' to it's Nato partners by puffing up the percentage of British military spending by subtracting x on one side and adding x on the other.

Even if it's sounds ridiculous this shift pretty likely had already on impact on British defence spending. The specific accounting logic certainly influences more or less the way countries and companies operate. In this case the rest of the defence budget should be under heavier pressure then with the former accounting policy.