Coalition announces Strategic Defence Spending Review: opinions?

The long awaited Strategic Defence and Security Spending Review is finally published. Key highlights include:

[ul]
[li]All British personnel are to be withdrawn from Germany[/li][li]The number of tanks and heavy artillery are to be cut[/li][li]More Chinooks to be purchased[/li][li]The Nimrod project is scrapped[/li][li]Harrier fleet to be decommissioned[/li][li]HMS Ark Royal decommissioned[/li][li]Replacement of Trident delayed for four years[/li][li]Seven new nuclear Astute class submarines to be completed as planned[/li][li]Replacement aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth II to be built as planned[/li][/ul]

Opinions? It seems the Navy has come best off in the review with new submarines, a new set of larger carriers, though they lose the flagship and at least one other carrier (Ocean or Illustrious), and they still maintain the nuclear deterrant.

You forgot to mention the aircraft carriers won’t have any aircraft until 2020 at least as the Harriers are being scrapped immediately.

But otherwise - we can still defend ourselves but playing the USA’s junior partner in war-crimes will be much harder.

Huh? I must have missed that. The navy will have no strike aircraft at all until 2020? When do the carriers get commissioned?

I think the carriers will be operational by 2017/18, but the JSFs we’ve ordered are due by 2020. So for two years we’ll have carriers with no aircraft to carry.

It’s an odd decision. If we can do without them for 10 years, do we really need them? Or if we do really need them, why are we doing without them for 10 years?

One of the possible consequences is that, 10 years from now we’ll have no pilots with any experience in carrier operations, or indeed take-off and landing.

Well before then. We’ll have no means of defending outlying territories like the Falklands without going nuclear. And we won’t be able to project force without land bases in friendly territory.

From the Telegraph:

Why are we building two carriers to mothball/sell one almost straight away?

I suspect it’s because it’s more difficult to get out of the contract now. Plus, there’s an interest in maintaining the ability to build major naval hardware whcih you can only do with more or less continuous employment in shipyards. Plus there’s a political calculation about not binning a lot of jobs, although that’s evidently less of a concern for this government.

In short, “they’re really expensive and we don’t need them both, because we’re not going to fight the Chinese.” Also, because the government appears to have decided that all future British wars will be fought as part of a coalition.

It certainly seems a short-sighted view, especially given that the second ship has already been paid for.

It looks as though selling the second carrier is an unlikely option, and reading between the lines, it wouldn’t happen at least until the 2015 Review.

Most curious of all is the fact that the government won’t buy any of the STOVL F-35s, and instead will buy the conventional C variant. Essentially, most of the British investment and R&D will go to waste, since only the US Marines will operate the B variant.

Although the Harriers are (as I hear it) incredibly expensive to operate, I love them and will be sorry to see them go. I was hoping someone would develop a cost effective model to utilize

They did. It’s called the F-35B, and it was just axed. :stuck_out_tongue:

The write up I saw says it reduces Britain’s maximum possible army commitment to any overseas endeavour to 30,000. We had 45,000 in the Iraq invasion (or was that Gulf War 1? Not sure).

I’m wondering how many of the Tories would have voted for something like this under a Labour government. Certainly many would have been decrying it as selling the British military out.

Given that carriers are incredibly vulnerable in the modern naval conflict environment, and that the future of air power project and air superiority are smaller, lighter, longer range and duration UAVs, the investment in fall sized aircraft carriers is obtuse from a functional standpoint. The existing through deck cruiser platforms were really intended for convoy overflight protection and anti-submarine warfare rather than power project, a weakness that became apparent during the Falkland Island conflict.

Stranger

Yes, aircraft carriers are vulnerable, but you need a platform from which your aircraft - manned or unmanned - can operate where you don’t have a friendly country in range.

The existing through deck cruiser platforms were being retired already. The carriers which saw action in the Falklands were Invincible and Hermes; Hermes was sold to India a couple of years after the Falklands War, and Invincible has more or less been mothballed since 2005.

It’s true that the QE class is also optimized for ASW, but the last 15 years of development have been undertaken knowing that the Royal Navy’s ASW mission is all but over.

If they need them yesterday ,there is supposed to be an offer on the table to lease F18 hornets from the USN.

Declan

I suspect the decision to withdraw from Germany will be revoked. You want to be the US’s junior partner, you need a jump off point.

From a strictly pride point of view, I see this apparent decline of British power quite annoying.

I mourn the decline of British Naval ship naming.

Yeah, HMS Queen Elizabeth II is the lamest name for a RN ship ever.