Defence Cuts and the Future Role of the Military

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 18 Oct 2010, 10:57

FWIW, I was listening to Radio 4 last night (The Westminster Hour?) and they were discussing the defence cuts. They had a couple of military people on, and one of them was discussing future security needs. In his list of things he said that if just two LNG ships, out of a constant stream, were stopped getting into Milford Haven, the country would be in trouble. He also mentioned energy security explicitly.

I don’t know whether ‘two’ is the correct number. I suspect that it would depend upon whether it was winter or not.

The tone of the piece was that he was envisioning a temporary disruption due to terrorism or piracy, and he was thinking in terms of the Navy protecting ships. I don’t think that he was contemplating invading Qatar and forcing ships to go to the UK,

Peter.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 18 Oct 2010, 12:51

Yes, energy, food and water scarcity issues are well known in military circles. Contrary to what some people say here, the military are important and will be a very important institution in maintaining global energy and food supplies into the future and managing some of the consequences of state collapse in Third world countries.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 18 Oct 2010, 12:59

Lord Beria3 wrote:Contrary to what some people say here, the military are important and will be a very important institution in maintaining global energy and food supplies into the future and managing some of the consequences of state collapse in Third world countries.

Are you basing this statement on the shining successes in Iraq and Afghanistan? or will we be deploying a different military?

Peter.

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 18 Oct 2010, 14:58

How far are we looking at future military ?

Think of our present motorway system with very few vehicles and most of them horse drawn, lots of grass and weeds pot holes and in terribly bad repair ......with a few beat up Toyota pick ups with 50 cal machine guns on the back and some people with small arms wearing bits of camo clothing.

Thats the national army of the future state of somerset in all its dread splendor, feared as far as far off Devon and even Wiltshire .

just imagine how we get to there from here

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 18 Oct 2010, 15:48

jonny2mad wrote:How far are we looking at future military ?

About -20 years, I think. I.e. things are still set up along Cold War lines.

However, new national strategy is to concentrate on:

•A terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, including the threat of chemical, biological, radiation or nuclear attacks
•Cyber attacks
•The threat of natural disaster or major accident
•And the threat of a international military conflict (this one not being seen as likely at the moment).

I believe that these are ranked. I can't really see nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, planes or tanks, etc. being high priorities if that is the thinking,

Peter.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 18 Oct 2010, 15:55

Lord Beria3 wrote:Contrary to what some people say here, the military are important and will be a very important institution in maintaining global energy and food supplies into the future and managing some of the consequences of state collapse in Third world countries.

By "the military", do you mean NATO? And by "global energy and food supplies" do you mean the supply of energy and food to the West?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 19 Oct 2010, 14:24

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 19 Oct 2010, 14:28

So let's sum up the situation. We have a perfectly good aircraft carrier that we're going to scrap. We're building two new aircraft carriers but they won't actually have any aeroplanes on them. We'll then sell one of the new carriers.

It's a funny way to run an empire.

Post by **clv101** » 19 Oct 2010, 14:56

So why is the Ark Royal being scrapped early (only been in service 25 years)? Maybe 'cos without it's Harriers it's rather pointless and the Harriers are being retired? So why are we losing the Harriers, they've only been around since 1990 (GR7 variant, basis of the current GR9).

I guess we're already committed to Eurofighter Typhoon, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Queen Elizabeth class carrier. The early retirement represent the cheapest why to get from here to where we've already decided we're going. It does leave a 'gap' of not being able to launch fast jets from sea from a while - but this really isn't that big a deal The Ark Royal only holds 12 Harriers. Helicopters are far more useful in day to day activities.

Selling one to India is an interesting idea. They have a growing collection!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_air ... l_Gorshkov

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 19 Oct 2010, 15:10

What's the betting that the day after the Ark Royal is scrapped the Argie's invade the Falklands?

Post by **clv101** » 19 Oct 2010, 15:22

kenneal wrote:What's the betting that the day after the Ark Royal is scrapped the Argie's invade the Falklands?

I don't see how the Ark Royal would be decisive. It simply doesn't project much power. If we thought the Falklands were at risk, better to station more defence there rather than rely on 12 Harriers a week's steam away.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 19 Oct 2010, 15:29

kenneal wrote:What's the betting that the day after the Ark Royal is scrapped the Argie's invade the Falklands?

But, would it really matter?

Peter.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 19 Oct 2010, 15:29

Apparently building the carriers is cheaper than invoking the penalty clauses in the contracts already signed. Who would sign such a contract?

The Tories were never going to cut the military hardware budget by much. Too many old school ties in the military industrial complex.

Joined up military planning for likely future military needs has never had much to do with it, even if the military are beginning (at the middle rank level) to wake up and smell the oil wells.

Post by **clv101** » 19 Oct 2010, 15:39

RalphW wrote:Apparently building the carriers is cheaper than invoking the penalty clauses in the contracts already signed. Who would sign such a contract?/

Simply someone who wanted the carriers, irrespective of costs, and absolutely didn't want the order cancelled a few years down the line in the name of 'cost saving'. Quite smart really.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 19 Oct 2010, 15:48

clv101 wrote:
kenneal wrote:What's the betting that the day after the Ark Royal is scrapped the Argie's invade the Falklands?
I don't see how the Ark Royal would be decisive. It simply doesn't project much power. If we thought the Falklands were at risk, better to station more defence there rather than rely on 12 Harriers a week's steam away.

Having the ability to take air power to the Falklands was crucial in getting them back last time. With only one carrier left, once the Falklands were in Argentinian hands, they would stay that way.

They are worth something if oil is found in any quantity. If an hydrogen economy gets going they are a good place to generate electricity by wind power and there's plenty of water to get hydrogen from. They are a good source of cheap lamb and wool and there are still plenty of fish around the islands.