baldysblog.co.uk

.

Our politicians of all parties have failed to provide clear ideas and direction in terms of the UK’s Foreign Policy and relationships with the rest of the world. As a consequence we don’t have a cogent defence policy and the taxpayer’s money is being spent inappropriately.

Although I will attack the Labour Government on it’s current spending plans, this is only as a starting point to question both the policy and direction of defence spending overall however, I will for now concentrate on the Royal Navy and their current programmes.

Trident Nuclear Subs armed with ICBMs

If we start with the Trident replacement programme, is that correct ? My personal view is that it is although I would ask people to separate the “Nuclear Missile” elements from the delivery system which is the submarine and crew combined with the missile delivery hardware with it’s command and control systems. Nuclear weapons are dreadful but they exist even though in a practical sense, they are virtually unusable, we must approach the issue sensibly.

We cannot “wish away” nuclear weapons, Pandora’s Box has been opened but the real problem of ‘proliferation’ lies in radioactive material ending up in the wrong hands due to carelessness or plain stupidity. The material though is different from the delivery system, Trident replacements could possibly deliver other weapons in the future so, keeping the delivery systems current, makes most sense until nuclear weapons can be phased out. Besides which, by going for a long lead time, the project could be abandoned long before metal is actually cut.

Astute Attack Subs

The Astute class nuclear submarine project after an appalling start, is now a positive programme. An attack submarine that carriers both torpedoes and cruise missiles is a highly flexible military tool and orders beyond the current 3 plus a fourth keel laid, are to be encouraged because it does offer a “Force Projection” option to any British Government that utilises conventional explosives rather than purely nuclear.

Type 45 Destroyers

The primary system of these ships will be an anti-air missile system in the middle, a gun on the fore deck and a Merlin Helicopter being launched from aft but frankly, I’m not too sure of the thinking or context behind all that so, at this time, I have little comment to make and will vote neither for nor against.

Aircraft Carriers

The two Aircraft Carriers (Queen Elizabeth & Prince of Wales), on the other hand, look of highly questionable value when considered as a contribution to the defence of the UK. They represent an answer to a question that will not be asked because they are based upon a set of circumstances that no longer apply to the UK either in the military or a diplomatic sense, we may just as well start building Dreadnought Battleships again.

With the Aircraft Carrier, people will talk about “Force Projection” and the ability to deploy air power independent of having local land bases and as far as it goes, that is true enough except… it isn’t and may best be described as a mirage.

Even if the ship was nuclear powered which neither of these will be because of the capital costs involved, with a compliment of 1200 crew and flying operations, they will need resupply on a weekly basis which is really quite a logistical train, just how many support ships will that require and will it not be they who need local land bases to keep the pipeline short and if that is so, where is the ‘main case’ argument of independence and freedom of action ?

Whilst having every sympathy for the Royal Navy wanting these ships, after all, we have 3 carriers still but no fixed wing aircraft to fly from them since all the Navy Harriers were decommissioned. These two represent ‘proper’ carriers and in the terms of the Joint Strike Fighter, a ‘proper’ aircraft to fly from them.

Unfortunately when it comes to the JSF, I am rather cynical, even the Americans declared it the most expensive fighter ever built, I think we have already contributed $4 billion to its development and, we may never see the VTOL (Vertical Take Off Landing), version we would like which means we would have to build large conventional carriers in order to operate it… “Tail Wags Dog !” It is interesting to note from a couple of pictures taken from the web, the original Thales illustration shows a carrier with a ski slope for launching VTOLs, the second illustration shows a conventional angled and straight deck – no VTOL version of the JSF then ?

But for future reference note the strange aircraft I have coloured in red to the bottom right hand corner of the picture – a Predator unmanned aircraft, a technology that the UK should be getting into in a rather big way.

In another entry I will discuss aircraft carriers as a tactical concept, their UK history and current usage but in this context my view is simple, these two carriers represent everything that is wrong with current defence thinking which leads to spending public money wastefully and without producing a military asset of any value. As an outsider what I see, which may or may not be correct, is a British Government trying to be a good ally to the US over the JSF aircraft, a good ally to France over building ships and giving French companies good business, but what I don’t see is a statement of “British Vital Interests” and actions that derive from that and are clearly understood by all.

To be totally frank, this is a common theme across the whole spectrum of British Foreign Policy and may well have much to do with a Civil Service and Foreign Office which has totally lost its way after 10 years of Labour abuse of the said Civil Service.