Mismatches

19 October 2010



Google
WWW Kensington Review

British Defense Procurement Does Not Match Threats

Britain, like most other world class powers, faces budgetary constraints on its defense policy. Yesterday, Her Majesty's Government released its National Security Strategy: "A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty" [NSS], an assessment of the threats to the nation. In a few hours, Prime Minister David Cameron will present the Strategic Defence and Security Review [SDSR], which will detail the budget cuts the Ministry of Defence faces (and it is the worst kept secret in Whitehall). The trouble is that the two documents have precious little to do with one another, and this could well be replicated in most nations.

The NSS divides the threats facing Britain into three tiers. The Tier-1 concerns are given the highest priority and are: "acts of terrorism affecting the UK or its interests; hostile attacks upon UK Cyber Space; a major accident or natural hazard (e.g. influenza pandemic); and an international military crisis between states, drawing in the UK and allies."

That seems to be a reasonable assessment, and in response, counter-terrorism spending (special forces, enhanced intelligence, drone platforms, and so on) should probably increase, as should the cyber-warfare budget (both offensive and defensive). A major shift in the role of the regular Army and Territorials (like the US National Guard) to focus energies and resources on logistical support for disaster areas as well as security in the face of a pandemic may require different spending but may not require more. The British military is well-equipped to fight a traditional war such as Iraq, and a budget boost may not be needed, and perhaps could undergo small cuts.

That is not quite what is happening. The good news is that special forces will receive a big boost to their budget; the bad news is that there is virtually nothing for drone platforms (recon or attack). The budget for cyber-space warfare will be a miserly £500 million; one must bear in mind that most UK government computers still use Internet Explorer 6 despite the huge security gaps. The budgeted amount will not be adequate. The natural disaster threats seem to be largely ignored in budget discussions. And it is in conventional warfare that spending becomes ridiculous.

The worst example of this is in regard to the UK's aircraft carriers; a problem created by Labour thanks to plainly political contracts written to make sure two carriers were cheaper than one, and therefore, Labour voters in the shipyards would have jobs. The Telegraph's James Kirkup writes,

Britain's one fully operational aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, is immediately retired. The Navy's other carrier, HMS Illustrious, will continue to function as a helicopter platform stripped of jets before retiring in 2014. The first of the new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will enter service in 2016, configured to carry helicopters, not jets. The second new carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will arrive in 2019. At that point, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be put into 'extended readiness', effectively mothballed indefinitely. Government sources indicated that the Queen Elizabeth was unlikely to return to service after that, and could well be sold to another country to recoup some of the cost of building it . . . .

Further angering Navy chiefs, the defence review will confirm that Harrier jump-jets will be abandoned next year but the RAF's Tornado will be spared to operate in Afghanistan. Scrapping the Harriers will create a 'capability gap' of nine years, with Britain unable to fly fast jets from an aircraft carrier until 2020, when the new JSF [F-35 Joint Strike Fighter] enters service.
Aircraft carriers without jets are hardly defense value for money. Al Qaeda, cybercrime gangs and North Korea achieve much the same without the expense -- they have no carriers and no jets on them and no bill for either.

This is not to condemn the LibCon Coalition, which was stuck with a lousy hand to play, nor indeed, is Labour entirely at fault. The global financial crunch hit at a time when defense priorities of every nation in the world need reassessment and their defense establishments need re-equipment. With little room to maneuver, assets will not match risks for a decade or two. Thus, bad economics makes the world a more dangerous place.

© Copyright 2010 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home
Follow KensingtonReview on Twitter