Flaws in British Defence Planning

[My_eternal_flame]

I apologise to any of you who may tale offence to what I may say, it is not my intention just my opinion on British strategic thinking....

I feel that the British forces and procurement of equipment is woeful. Under the spending cuts of previous years the British forces have seen harsh cuts to existing air, ground and sea power and the cutting of future projects. Strangely the expenditures in funding procurement seems very short sighted.

The Harrier GR7 and GR9's are a key part of this... A battle proven fighter/strike fighter that has seen action in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Falklands (in earlier variants) this was Britains only way of projecting world air power using British aircraft carriers. Instead the British now rely on very hi tech very expensive Type45 destroyers which although are very capable, they can't defend itself and attack targets as well. I can understand the need to cut spiralling costs and we have the capability of the Tornado and Typhoons as fast multirole fighters but technology sometimes isn't the answer and the loss of a potent seabourne aerial assault leaves Britain and what's left of the empire/dependent nations vulnerable.

In a world that is going to war against lesser equipped nations e.g. Afghanistan, Libya etc surely the expense of Eurofighters are overkill when a Harrier is just as good in the ground support role?

I also see that from Afghanistan, the British forces didn't have the capability to evacuate wounded troups out of IED fields, mine fields or compounds because they lacked medium sized winch equipped helicopters yet they spent millions on redeveloping the Lynx which has very limited usage in the battlefields of today.

Although the British forces are by no means weak the bureaucracy and lack of awareness concerns me. I can think of many other examples but I welcome your views gladly.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I apologise to any of you who may tale offence to what I may say, it is not my intention just my opinion on British strategic thinking....

I feel that the British forces and procurement of equipment is woeful. Under the spending cuts of previous years the British forces have seen harsh cuts to existing air, ground and sea power and the cutting of future projects. Strangely the expenditures in funding procurement seems very short sighted.

The Harrier GR7 and GR9's are a key part of this... A battle proven fighter/strike fighter that has seen action in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Falklands (in earlier variants) this was Britains only way of projecting world air power using British aircraft carriers. Instead the British now rely on very hi tech very expensive Type45 destroyers which although are very capable, they can't defend itself and attack targets as well. I can understand the need to cut spiralling costs and we have the capability of the Tornado and Typhoons as fast multirole fighters but technology sometimes isn't the answer and the loss of a potent seabourne aerial assault leaves Britain and what's left of the empire/dependent nations vulnerable.

In a world that is going to war against lesser equipped nations e.g. Afghanistan, Libya etc surely the expense of Eurofighters are overkill when a Harrier is just as good in the ground support role?

I also see that from Afghanistan, the British forces didn't have the capability to evacuate wounded troups out of IED fields, mine fields or compounds because they lacked medium sized winch equipped helicopters yet they spent millions on redeveloping the Lynx which has very limited usage in the battlefields of today.

Although the British forces are by no means weak the bureaucracy and lack of awareness concerns me. I can think of many other examples but I welcome your views gladly.

The British military is dogged by outdated, incredibly expensive and flawed tech such as the QE ACCs, EF Typhoon,T45 destroyers etc that are not even remotely suited for a nation of the UK's diminishes status/power nor relevant/suited for the conflicts/challenges the UK faces today. It is made worse by the fact that to save money the UKG has cut perfectly able and nessercary tech such as the Nimrod MPA, Harrier fleet and HMS Ark Royal. There is now a HUGE gap in the UK's defence capabilities that will not be filled for over a decade at least.

With the UK facing even more defence cuts and shameful long term economic prospects things are looking pretty grim on this front.


A pathetic state of affairs.

 

[My_eternal_flame]

Now it's not all doom n gloom, the destroyers and airpower would be a massive deterrent to many nations especially with NATO assistance, my point is that we are spending money on extremely high tech over budget equipment that does not fit the purpose. It's not the cold war anymore!

I use the F35 project as a prime example. It is supposed to be stealthy however it can still be detected by most modern radar systems with relative ease, it's over budget, delayed and relies totally on American support for it's master code.... Until this plane finally reaches frontline service APACHE gunships are going to have to protect the fleet and do their strike role, when the Harrier was perfect for both.

Don't get me wrong the Harrier had it's flaws (complicated, relatively slow and limited payload) but it could fly from anywhere, shoot anything and what's more it was already in service so no extra expense.

Purchases of more light armour personnel carriers also raises eyebrows, why cut the size of the army, plan to withdraw from Afghan in 2014 yet sign an expensive deal to build new IED "proof" jeeps that won't be ready until after the withdrawal... It's fools logic

 

[acetophenol]

I always wondered why UK retired harriers and jaguars!

 

[Ayush]

I apologise to any of you who may tale offence to what I may say, it is not my intention just my opinion on British strategic thinking....

I feel that the British forces and procurement of equipment is woeful. Under the spending cuts of previous years the British forces have seen harsh cuts to existing air, ground and sea power and the cutting of future projects. Strangely the expenditures in funding procurement seems very short sighted.

The Harrier GR7 and GR9's are a key part of this... A battle proven fighter/strike fighter that has seen action in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Falklands (in earlier variants) this was Britains only way of projecting world air power using British aircraft carriers. Instead the British now rely on very hi tech very expensive Type45 destroyers which although are very capable, they can't defend itself and attack targets as well. I can understand the need to cut spiralling costs and we have the capability of the Tornado and Typhoons as fast multirole fighters but technology sometimes isn't the answer and the loss of a potent seabourne aerial assault leaves Britain and what's left of the empire/dependent nations vulnerable.

In a world that is going to war against lesser equipped nations e.g. Afghanistan, Libya etc surely the expense of Eurofighters are overkill when a Harrier is just as good in the ground support role?

I also see that from Afghanistan, the British forces didn't have the capability to evacuate wounded troups out of IED fields, mine fields or compounds because they lacked medium sized winch equipped helicopters yet they spent millions on redeveloping the Lynx which has very limited usage in the battlefields of today.

Although the British forces are by no means weak the bureaucracy and lack of awareness concerns me. I can think of many other examples but I welcome your views gladly.

u r right mate,british economy is on decline,and naturally the defence expenditure is down too.
the main culprit according to me is your declining economy.u guys need to find a way to put it on track.

now i dont specialise in british affairs,so i m not gonna say much.

perhaps @Abingdonboy can shed more light on this.

 

[Abingdonboy]

u r right mate,british economy is on decline,and naturally the defence expenditure is down too.
the main culprit according to me is your declining economy.u guys need to find a way to put it on track.

now i dont specialise in british affairs,so i m not gonna say much.

perhaps @Abingdonboy can shed more light on this.

Check post #2!!

 

[My_eternal_flame]

I always wondered why UK retired harriers and jaguars!

The Jaguars were sold due to the Tornado GR4 which I believe has a higher payload, adaptability etc but the Harrier's withdrawal was inexcusable

 

[Abingdonboy]

Now it's not all doom n gloom, the destroyers and airpower would be a massive deterrent to many nations especially with NATO assistance, my point is that we are spending money on extremely high tech over budget equipment that does not fit the purpose. It's not the cold war anymore!

I use the F35 project as a prime example. It is supposed to be stealthy however it can still be detected by most modern radar systems with relative ease, it's over budget, delayed and relies totally on American support for it's master code.... Until this plane finally reaches frontline service APACHE gunships are going to have to protect the fleet and do their strike role, when the Harrier was perfect for both.

Don't get me wrong the Harrier had it's flaws (complicated, relatively slow and limited payload) but it could fly from anywhere, shoot anything and what's more it was already in service so no extra expense.

Purchases of more light armour personnel carriers also raises eyebrows, why cut the size of the army, plan to withdraw from Afghan in 2014 yet sign an expensive deal to build new IED "proof" jeeps that won't be ready until after the withdrawal... It's fools logic

Let's talk about the T-45 destroyers, these were launched without even CIWS and other basic equipment. The UK military has pioneered a new phrase that seems to come with all major UK military procurements- "wired for, but not installed" meaning if the UKG finds the money down the line then certain basic equipment these products were meant to come with can be installed years later at an inflated cost.


Look at the F-35 fiasco. First it was "Bs" the RAF/RN was getting then the "Cs" then after millions had been spent on feasiblity studies and construction work on the QE class ACCs it was back to the "Bs"! The UK MoD are more incompetant/corrupt than I can comprehend!

To date the UK MoD are still incapable of assessing life cycle costs of any given military procurement and to fund all the "goodies" they merely defer payment meaning there is a huge wave of unpaid bills more than the annual defence budget of the UK hidden from view.


Weapons of the future like the EF Typhoon, F-35B, T-45 destroyers etc all come with critical failings and gaps that are unlikely to be filled anytime soon meaning the roles and tasks these products are expected to undertake will not be done at the level anyone wants or was asked for. Not to mention all the big-ticket procurements are coming in waaayyy over-budget and with significant delays.

 

[neehar]

The British military is dogged by outdated, incredibly expensive and flawed tech such as the QE ACCs, EF Typhoon,T45 destroyers etc that are not even remotely suited for a nation of the UK's diminishes status/power nor relevant/suited for the conflicts/challenges the UK faces today. It is made worse by the fact that to save money the UKG has cut perfectly able and nessercary tech such as the Nimrod MPA, Harrier fleet and HMS Ark Royal. There is now a HUGE gap in the UK's defence capabilities that will not be filled for over a decade at least.

With the UK facing even more defence cuts and shameful long term economic prospects things are looking pretty grim on this front.


A pathetic state of affairs.

well said also i'd like to point out that u.k is the second largest funder for NATO..with all these war's in asia in the interest of its greater ally..u.k got a great set back both interms of men and money..
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm

 

[Sedqal]

Now it's not all doom n gloom, the destroyers and airpower would be a massive deterrent to many nations especially with NATO assistance, my point is that we are spending money on extremely high tech over budget equipment that does not fit the purpose. It's not the cold war anymore!

I use the F35 project as a prime example. It is supposed to be stealthy however it can still be detected by most modern radar systems with relative ease, it's over budget, delayed and relies totally on American support for it's master code.... Until this plane finally reaches frontline service APACHE gunships are going to have to protect the fleet and do their strike role, when the Harrier was perfect for both.

Don't get me wrong the Harrier had it's flaws (complicated, relatively slow and limited payload) but it could fly from anywhere, shoot anything and what's more it was already in service so no extra expense.

Purchases of more light armour personnel carriers also raises eyebrows, why cut the size of the army, plan to withdraw from Afghan in 2014 yet sign an expensive deal to build new IED "proof" jeeps that won't be ready until after the withdrawal... It's fools logic

These tools obviously are preparation for possible war scenarios, I thought (and I am out of depth here, not my area of expertise) that there was a threat from Russia to Eastern Europe.

 

[Progressive Conservative]

The new changes represent a change in mindset. No longer is Britain the lone crusader but it is now a nation that protects its interests with increased reliance on others. After the Strategic Defence and Security Review took effect, the RUSI think tank gave a chilling summary that Britain would "never again be among the global superpowers".


The redundancies across the force, the sale of the Harrier fleet, the scrapping of the Ark Royal, the scrapping of the fleet of Nimrods and the whole episode about Trident: these were all necessary due to the ground realities of the countries financial situation.

 

[Abingdonboy]

The new changes represent a change in mindset. No longer is Britain the lone crusader but it is now a nation that protects its interests with increased reliance on others. After the Strategic Defence and Security Review took effect, the RUSI think tank gave a chilling summary that Britain would "never again be among the global superpowers".


The redundancies across the force, the sale of the Harrier fleet, the scrapping of the Ark Royal, the scrapping of the fleet of Nimrods and the whole episode about Trident: these were all necessary due to the ground realities of the countries financial situation.

Mate the SDSR of 2010 was nothing more than a cost cutting measure wrapped in a guise of re-structuring the military to make it more capable when in fact it is "de-fanging" the UK military in many ways. The Tories needed to cut spending to address the deficit and the bloated military was a easy target the thing is, they targeted the wrong projects ie the Harriers, the Ark Royal, the NIMROD (for which billions had already been spent and were months/weeks away from entering service) etc and instead allowed hugely disappointing and underperfomring projects like the QE Class,F-35 etc to continue because of the absurd reasoning that they would cost more to scrap than be allowed to mature and be delivered!


I don't think you can call the Harriers/Ark Royal redundant as we saw in the Libyan capaign undertaken by the RAF last year. The MoD said that any shortfalls caused by the scrapping of the Harrier and AR would be met with EFTs and Tornados with the aide of AAR but as the Libyan campaign confirmed what any expert had been saying since Oct 2010- the EFTs are not going to be anywere near ready for stand alone A2G missions for years and this option (RAF jets being refuelld in flight) is INCREDIBLY expensive and the Harrier force being stationed off the Libyan coast onboard the ARK would have cost a fraction of this.


And then there is the NIMROD MPA program. The UK with one of the largest EEZ to patrol on earth is now without a MPA! It is just unreal!

 

[My_eternal_flame]

The new changes represent a change in mindset. No longer is Britain the lone crusader but it is now a nation that protects its interests with increased reliance on others. After the Strategic Defence and Security Review took effect, the RUSI think tank gave a chilling summary that Britain would "never again be among the global superpowers".


The redundancies across the force, the sale of the Harrier fleet, the scrapping of the Ark Royal, the scrapping of the fleet of Nimrods and the whole episode about Trident: these were all necessary due to the ground realities of the countries financial situation.

I can understand cutting costs and going into collaboration with our NATO allies my issue is that despite cuts to practical services or equipment e.g. Harrier, Type 42 destroyers etc in order to save costs.... The Government insists on pouring money into the White elephant that is the F35 project and the replacements (Foxhounds I believe) for snatch Land Rovers which won't be deployed in time to see service in Afghanistan as things stand!

A cut in Challenger2 tanks is reasonable as large scale open tank warfare seems a thing of the past but procurement policies are in a mess and I dread to think who is advising the Government on the strategic effects that it may have on their grandeur ideas of foreign policy!

 

[My_eternal_flame]

I would also like to raise the financial question of why Apache's launching Hellfire missiles are being used against individual ringleaders of the insurgency? It's my understanding that a Hellfire missile costs around £100,000 each I think that's a bit excessive when a 30mm chain gun round would do just as much damage to the insurgent and the risk of collateral to civilian population is if anything reduced. Yes a Hellfire can be launched from a safe range thus reducing risk of losing helicopter and crew but it seems an expensive safety net to me....

 

[Progressive Conservative]

Mate the SDSR of 2010 was nothing more than a cost cutting measure wrapped in a guise of re-structuring the military to make it more capable when in fact it is "de-fanging" the UK military in many ways. The Tories needed to cut spending to address the deficit and the bloated military was a easy target the thing is, they targeted the wrong projects ie the Harriers, the Ark Royal, the NIMROD (for which billions had already been spent and were months/weeks away from entering service) etc and instead allowed hugely disappointing and underperfomring projects like the QE Class,F-35 etc to continue because of the absurd reasoning that they would cost more to scrap than be allowed to mature and be delivered!


I don't think you can call the Harriers/Ark Royal redundant as we saw in the Libyan capaign undertaken by the RAF last year. The MoD said that any shortfalls caused by the scrapping of the Harrier and AR would be met with EFTs and Tornados with the aide of AAR but as the Libyan campaign confirmed what any expert had been saying since Oct 2010- the EFTs are not going to be anywere near ready for stand alone A2G missions for years and this option (RAF jets being refuelld in flight) is INCREDIBLY expensive and the Harrier force being stationed off the Libyan coast onboard the ARK would have cost a fraction of this.


And then there is the NIMROD MPA program. The UK with one of the largest EEZ to patrol on earth is now without a MPA! It is just unreal!

I should elaborate a bit on my viewpoint. Do I believe that the SDSR was necessary to cut costs and try and reduce the deficit? Yes. Do I believe that the SDSR was carried out effectively? Hell no. I don't like the SDSR any more than you do as it was ill thought and irrational. I actually pretty much agree with everything you've said and I'd like to add a bit.

The fact that the entire fleet of Harriers was sold for £115m (or the cost of 1 Typhoon if you include development costs) is ludicrous. What beggars belief further is that in 2005, £1bn was spent upgrading the fleet.

£4bn was spent and invested in the Nimrod MR4. To then go on and scrap every single one of those planes was utterly ridiculous and the operational deficit caused by their departure is quite worrying.

Also, I don't think that either the Harriers or the Nimrod were redundant at all. Again, I agree with you that the JSF program has turned out to be a black hole when it comes to sucking up tax payers money. To add to that, the constant U-turns over the program is simply an embarrassment for Britain.


However, on balance, costs had to be cut. The majority of people if asked whether they want Britain to carry on being a military superpower or continue to get free health care and other forms of government spending, would obviously opt for the latter. The thoughtless cuts in the military budget were a result of a Tory government trying to cut expenditures in a panic.