Countdown to the Spending Review: a fierce battle over defence cuts

The main problem with waste is in the defence procurement process. For those who want to study the delays and stupidity involved please refer to the mid air refuelling plane delays, replacement standard issue rifles, the eoropean fighter project and of course anything to do with the nuclear deterrent.

The lack of a clear planning and costing policy is a national scandal.

The prices that the MOD gets charged for very standard supplies is also a clear case for an in-depth corruption investigation as no-one in their right minds would be stupid enough to accept the prices that they are being quoted.

The government must accept the reality that the UK can no longer afford to punch above its weight, especially as its overseas defence responsibilites are limited to the Falklands and the Sovereign base area/s in Cyprus. Neither of which require hugely expensive aircraft carriers and a flotilla of suppporting ships to defend. To that end, the carriers- dependent on American aircraft, should be cancelled. Any country that attacks either of these two islands can be dealt with by UK submarine launched cruise missiles, aimed at their capital cities.

John Lacy is right in that the prices are too high, but it's not corruption, rather complacency that is to blame. On a great many projects, the money is spent all right, just not on the right things. Procrastination and repeatedly revisiting decisions are examples of typical waste. Perhaps there are politicians motivated to reduce this kind of waste, but there doesn't seem to be anyone in MoD procurement. What's needed is the will to adopt a positive approach to the task in hand, but instead, the most positive approach taken is towards protecting one's own job and the arcane processes that go with it.

I think GD-C would be well advised to commenting on issues less complicated than Defence. I am not convinced that his idea of cruise missiling capital cities is particularly well thought through!

Good point from John on the waste in the system - add the last Govt's bright idea of plumping for new Lynx helicopters at exhorbitant cost rather than just buying excellent BlackHawks off the Americans (for peanuts) to the list of procurement stupidity.

Matthew has his own thoughts on this and that, but by his own admission is not convinced by them. Whilst spurning my views on the use of existing but highly effective and economical deterrents against those who might attack our few notable overseas possessions, he offers no alternatives. Not exactly a convincing argument to support his suggestion that matters of defence are too complicated for my consideration. Perhaps he should remind himself of where the only two A-bombs were dropped, and the fire bombing of Drseden and Hamburg!

GD-C, you're right, I offered no alternatives.

2 quick points though:

1 - your assertion that the UK's "overseas defence responsibilites are limited to the Falklands and the Sovereign base area/s in Cyprus" is false;

2 - your suggestion that "Any country that attacks either of these two islands can be dealt with by UK submarine launched cruise missiles, aimed at their capital cities" is flawed because it is drastically overly simplistic.

The crux of my point is that your comments on the future shape of the Navy are naive and ill thought through. My concern is that this same degree of (non) thinking will prevail in the Spending Review for real.

Finally, does anyone else understand what on earth GD-C is on about in the last paragraph of his post re Atom Bombs and fire bombing? Some very strange ideas....

Matthew

Other than the two I have cited, what other notable overseas possession does the UK have in terms of a military context, that might be considered of strategic importance for an enemy to attack and would require(in your view) two(one always on station) £15bn aircraft carriers each with its flotilla of support ships to protect it? As you will know, a British submarine torpedeod the Argentine's cruiser Belgrano with a conventional torpedo resulting in the loss of 1200 men, which effectively put an end the Arggentine's hopes of regaining the Falklands.

A carrier could be sunk with a single torpedo armed with a relatively small nuclear warhead. What type of targets do you think the Trident nuclear missiles are programmed to strike? Do you think that in the days of the 'cold war' Moscow, London and New York would have been left standing in the event of a nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia? Given the above, it should not be difficult for you to connect the bombing of Nagasaki,Hiroshima Dresden and Hamburg, with my earlier proposal.All are a reminder to potential invaders that its not just the attacking forces who are vulnerable.

Of course, there is no point in having a Defence Policy with varying deterrent levels if you are unwilling or too squeamish to use them against vulneralbe targets and prefer your own troops and civilians to take the brunt of the casualties. Since the two A-bombs were dropped, the MAD principle has kept the world at large, safe. We have the means and the will to deter an attack from any country, but as yet, not from a group of single minded terrorist factions; against whom, a nuclear carrier would be useless.

I am with matthew on this. And I am sorry GD-C your comments do not make sense. Defence is an extremely complicated business and involves protecting our interests worldwide. It involves nuclear deterrence, conventional warfare, counter terrorism, peacekeeping, disaster relief, emergency evacuation of Brit nationals etc etc. History shows that it can be a huge mistake to make ill-considered defence cuts. Nobody, no matter how well informed, can predict future events. The best they can do is take a wild guess, particularly when looking further than 10 years out. You simply cannot turn the tap on and off with defence. What is decided now will affect us for decades. The simple fact is that while human beings populate this planet there will always be raving lunatics out there who wish to do us or our interests harm. Not to mention strains on the world's resources which could further fuel international tension.

The way the MOD has operated is certainly one area though where savings could be made and if it takes the sensible approach, this alone should be target for the gov't which will also benefit us for the future.

As I have extensively set out elsewhere with support from GD-C the two aircraft carriers were a major folly of the last government. The Chancellor admitted yesterday that when they came to power it was too late to cancel the contract without incurring even greater expense.

May I add that no-one - least of all protectors of the environment - are aware of the polluting power of these monsters. Here is part of a letter I wrote to George Monbiot - he did not reply

"18 September 2008

Dear Mr Monbiot

At one of the deepest financial crises in most people’s memories the government has committed the country to building the largest warships the UK has ever produced. We are paying green taxes to fund the greatest polluting vehicles on earth for they are powered by oil. At present prices it will cost over 6 million pounds just to fill their tanks, each of which will hold 8600 tonnes of oil. "

His silence and the fact in the press and broadcasts the subject was never even mentioned let alone discussed,. made it obvious that a gagging order had been issued. Perhaps in 30 years the truth will out.

Millions of elderly people with fading eyesight are forced to endure dim lighting in their homes to reduce pollution while the state embarks on the greatest polluting exercise imaginable - for what?