British Army Discussions and Updates

[citizen578]

In my opinion Britain doesn’t need two 60, 000 tonne carriers, what she needs is two 40,000 tonne, versatile Commando Carriers with well decks and capable of carrying a small flight of STOVL aircraft – basically a UK centric WASP Class.

People often refer to another Falklands moment, but the Falklands have in essence become a floating aircraft carrier. It has the hard shelters to protect more than two squadrons of Typhoons, plus the accommodation and logistical set-up to sustain a brigade. So in times of increased tensions you simply C17 in the necessary resources to deter attack.

I completely disagree. The Falklands emphatically demonstrated that a powerful naval force, with aviation at it's core, is central to Britain's ability to respond to crisis.

Unfortunately, the RAF bucked their post-WW2 trnd of being far better at playing politics than fighting, they convinced gormless politicians to build a static, inflexible and phenomenally expensive airbase (which is in effect only an auxilliary base anyway) at the expense of the very weapons which won us the war... aircraft carriers.

That being on top of the fact that the RAF-inspired cancellation of CVA-01 very very nearly cost us the war (the consequences of which would have stretched far beyond the south atlantic).

The message from 1982 was flexibility; the flexibility to react to multiple crisis (for a textbook case of this, consider the Belize stand-off where HMS Ark Royal (the old one!) saved the day - as extensively explored in the recent Roland White book Pheonix Squandron).

Prevention is fantastic where it works, but again the Falklands proved this to be a false comfort. There was no time to reinforce the frankly pathetic garrison in the islands, and there was practically no warning from the intelligence services.
Today we have 4 tornado F3s, another fairly pathetic force (although the Arg AF is far more pathetic atm) and intelligence services facing a massive overstretch and very much focussed on another region.

It would be a massively dangerous assumption that the Falklands will be the only flashpoint the RN faces, indeed it was a similar assumption that nearly cost us the war.

 

[riksavage]

There has been some very interesting strategic level discussions in the UK sponsored by well regarded think-tanks focusing on the future security threats as a result of the global shift in power East and the demographic changes of populations. Link to free Exec Summary:

http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=676

Quote: We (UK) need to build better global institutions across a wide front, but for the foreseeable future UK security will be best served by our membership of the transatlantic alliance. The cosy status quo, however, in which the US takes much of the strain while Europe
dissipates its limited defence and security resources on duplicated costs and Cold War museum armies, will not be available indefinitely. If we do not strengthen NATO by reinforcing its European pillar, not just on defence but on wider security issues too, the result will be neither the status quo nor some other fantasy of wider collective security cooperation. There will be a future crisis that leaves us vulnerable to shifting American interests and opinion, relative US decline and European disunity and weakness, when NATO’s political glue fails to hold and Europe is left more exposed than at any time since the Second World War.

The general consensus is Britain (and Europe) will not be able to rely on a US protective umbrella indefinitely. This will be driven not just by the current realignment of economic power, but also demographic changes within West. The fast rising Hispanic population in the US for example will overtime force the country to look South in building better strategic relationships and also increase the focus on the regions security. As the likelihood of WWIII breaking out in Europe deminishes the focus will be redirected to other potential flashpoints.

The UK must conduct a comprehensive, far reaching Risk Assessment (risk = threat + harm) to determine which are most likely to be realised, and which have the potential to cause catastrophic harm to the country (people, strategic assets, economic survival). With the current round of belt tightening we simply cannot afford big ticket items, which may never be used to their full potential.

The problem with the carrier programme is it requires so much supporting infrastructure and additional assets to make it viable, namely: F35B's, new auxiliary support vessels and AsW assets etc., to ensure we have the complete package. With the recent rise in cost, we can't afford it all. So one of the following will happen:

1. Programme continues at the expense of other much need programmes (unlikely);
2. Redesign and produce two smaller vessels as originally intended (40,000 tonnes each), or
3. Buy and equip only one and come up with a mutual agreement with the French whereby at least one Strike Carrier is available to cover major contingencies.

We cannot avoid the fact that for Afghanistan to succeed we need improved ISTAR, UCAV, Helo's, strategic left and more boots on the ground. There are simply too many existing platforms reaching obsolescence to be ignored.

The UK must get away from a parade ground mentality of buying kit, which looks good on the tank park, but which is totally over engineered for the current battlefield. In 1913 Generals were counting cavalry divisions saying they were essential in order to exploit a tactical break through on the ground, we can't afford similar mistakes for purely sentimental reasons.

 

[Palnatoke]

I think that one mistake is to see Britain's secuity policies in a "local" british context. I know that many- perhaps most - Britons would disagree with me, but hear the truth from a stranger: Britain's security context and partners of interest is first of all Europe and then the US.

There is 1.3Bn Chineese, 1.1bn indians, 300M americans, 230M indonesians. A country like Nigeria has 150M people, Brazil got close to 200M... The UK... 60M, France 65M and germany, the largest european nation, 82M. For the moment, largely due to historical reasons, Europe&US shares half the world's riches, though that unequal relationship is not going to contine indefinatly.

For me at least, the only way Britain, France, Germany or "Europe" is going to continue to claim influence in the world is if these countries coorporate closer and closer. This coorporation, called the EU, is economically allready a huge succes though it lacks badly in the fields of foreign policies and security policies.


Securitywise Europe needs to "take the spoon in the other hand" (as we say in my country). It's humiliating to see the powerlessness, the disunity: Mighty Britain struggling to fight some barefooted taliban warriors? Who would have thought that 100 years ago? And where's France? Well I will tell you, building bases in the emirats because then Sarko's good friend can maybe, just maybe, sell some airplanes to some oil millionaires. Germany? perpetually locked in the sins of their great grand parents, it is kind of sad....

Let me tell you what should be done: UK and France are going to build those expensive carriers- we want four btw. and other necessary tools of war that requires "size" to be worthwhile. Yes, we are going to develop the next generation of fighter airplanes and other systems, and we are going to do it together using buisness rules, well known and tested to satisfaction in the common market. Germany are going to buy those airbus transports. and the medium and smaller nations are going to do their outmost to deliver the kind of systems and forces that they can handle.
And, yes, we are going to COORDINATE our foreign- and security policy.

The alternative is another 100 years of decline - "Decline" a word that should be well known to the french and british.

 

[Waylander]

...Mighty Britain struggling to fight some barefooted taliban warriors? Who would have thought that 100 years ago?...

Ahem, actually some 150-100 years ago they struggled alot in their intended colonializing of Afghanistan...

 

[Palnatoke]

Waylander

Yes, though I think my point is clear.

 

[riksavage]

Waylander

Yes, though I think my point is clear.

Everybody is struggling to combat the asymmetrical threat posed by the Taliban, including the Americans, and before them the mighty Soviet Empire, so the comment is really not valid.

Remember Britain's commitment to the war on terror is second only to the US in numbers and capabilities, which considering the size of its army (smaller than both France's and Germany's) makes the current situation reference ISAF's reluctance to fight even more pathetic.

The problem with Europe is the vastly different acceptance levels of risk exposure. The UK is prepared to commit troops at all levels (not just SF) to intensive full-on combat missions, France and Germany for what ever reason simply aren't. Until we can remove those ludicrous caveats the UK military will always remain sceptical of both Germany and France's motivation to 'pull their weight' in a real fight. This is why they will never fully commit to a European army.

See attached article

Handicapped in the Hindu Kush: Do Poor Weapons Hinder Germany in Afghanistan? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

If Britain, France and Germany combined to create a true and 'committed' fighting force, then we would be capable of taking on all future perspective advisories, with or without the US. However this will require a seismic change in attitude of the larger mainland European states. If you commit to a theatre of operations, then the gloves must come off within the accepted norms of the Geneva Convention. Pussy footing around endangers, not improves the missions chances of success.

One other option in the report was for Britain to turn to the Commonwealth Countries and build a strategic security alliance, include: India, Canada and Australia and you have pretty potent group of nations who, based on track record, don't need caveats to do the job.

 

[Waylander]

The Brits played their part in placing these doubts about combat operations into the thinking of us Germans...

Half a century of teaching restrain in military matters and you think Germany can throw this of in a matter of years?

And change is coming.
The combat operations conducted these days by regular german troops are not some pussy footing.
It looks like the Taliban are coming to the north and our troops are fighting them when they find them.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

rik, I agree with you about the problems fighting in Afghanistan. It's a poor country so the national forces are reliant on foreign aid, yet has a great money-spinner for criminal gangs and the Taliban (opium). A large proportion of the population is armed (available for recruitment by the Taliban) and foreign reinforcements can be easily brought in from neighbouring Afghanistan. That the British Army has continued to perform well when it has fought is a tribute to its quality.

However, despite your view that the new carriers are not what we need, it is now impossible to redesign them. Very soon £1 billion will have been spent, and the full amount has been contracted for. To pull out now would probably lead to losing most of the cost in penalty payments or court judgments, with no replacement paid for and the existing carriers nearing the end of their lives. Sadly from your point of view it's much, much too late to do anything other than carry on, or throw good money away.

As for the French, they can't even agree to fund their own one, let alone come to an agreement with us to "share" both. It's also true that you would save a lot less than half the project cost by building only one carrier. They're too late to get in on our project and reduce costs that way - first steel is due to be cut next week.

The cost was always expected to rise with the delay. But it's easier for the budget to handle because they're spread out.

The Brits played their part in placing these doubts about combat operations into the thinking of us Germans...

Half a century of teaching restrain in military matters and you think Germany can throw this of in a matter of years?

Excuse me, but please don't blame us for the fact your troops are subject to silly restrictions. That is due to German policy.

And change is coming.

The combat operations conducted these days by regular german troops are not some pussy footing.

"Regular" German troops. Are these the ones that have grown fat on too much beer and food, or are you talking about the real soldiers?

Really, what change? What limitations is Germany lifting on the troops' usage?

Sure, if the Taliban directly attack German troops between 9am and 5pm, Monday through Friday they'll get pasted. But if they attack on the weekend or "after hours", I don't know what the situation will be like....

 

[Waylander]

I feel quite offended by your style.

Our troops are dying just as the ones of other countries and your tone is highly disrespectfull to their sacrifices.
They are dying because of IEDs, RPGs or small arms fire. At day and at night.
And they are professionals. Talking about them being fat because of beer and food just because you read it in the yellow press is bullshit.
I have no problem with talking about deficiencis of our commitment in a serious way and I am the last one who doesn't admit that our governemtn sometimes doesn't know what it is doing but mocking our soldiers in such a tone is defenitely a no go.

And thinking that Britain had no impact on the decades long pacification of the german population after WW2 is more than just ridicilous.
You remember the original british idea about NATO? Keeping the US in, the germans down and the russians out...

And our regular troops haven't shown huge deficiences for decades and since their creation have given our NATO allies more than often a run for the money during joint maneuvers since the creation of the Bundeswehr.

What makes you able to state such bullshit apart from some sun and times articles?

 

[Palnatoke]

A couple of things.

It's laughable to continue to disrespect the german army, and it's uncharming when it's done with the sole purpose of making one self look better. It's not so that the UK has unique troops compared to the rest of western NATO countries. And the UK+allies (which include my own country) have not exactly performed steller in it's COIN neither in Iraq nor Afgh.


Germany has a special history that germans are very concerned about, and eventhough I think that history is history, done is done and it's time to move on, many germans do not feel that way and as long as it is so Germany will likely have great difficulties getting too deep involved in wars that are morally "discussable". But that's not the same as saying that the german army is cowardly - afterall it was on the german army's abillity to hold back Ivan that all our hopes centered on 30 years ago.

Rik

Remember Britain's commitment to the war on terror is second only to the US in numbers and capabilities,

Sure, sure - but that second place is light years away from the number one spot.

France is just as committed - or careless - when it comes to putting soldiers in harms way, but like with the UK, France has a very solitary foreign and security policy that serves narrow and short term national interests and is more or less detached from the perspectives offered in a greater European cooperation - that even blind people must be able to see the necessity of.

And as a result of short term narrow self-interests, both countries are, relatively, declining, financially, culturally and millitary and have been so since 1st of september 1939 - if not before.

We have to break this spiral of decay and France and Britain HAS to realise that they can become leaders of a union, which has the potential to become a power to be reckoned with - finacially, culturally and millitarely - But they can have neither on their own, if we just look a few years down the road.

One other option in the report was for Britain to turn to the Commonwealth Countries

I think that the use of the CW is for criqet and embarrishment, Certainly the UK has very limited commen interests with the majority of the CW as compared to the EU-area and the US.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I feel quite offended by your style.

And I was offended by the fact you sought to blame us for German reluctance to get properly stuck in. Whatever the situation with NATO, German politicians today use history as an excuse not to pull their weight and it's fair to say the German public do as well. That's the simple fact.

I'm sorry, but when you made cocky statements about what was going to happen it set me off. Why wait until the Taleban come to you, why aren't you going to where they are and if you are now, why weren't you at the start? Far more British personnel have died than Germans. I'm not saying that means we're doing "better" than you, but it goes some way to explaining why I'm annoyed.

our regular troops haven't shown huge deficiences for decades and since their creation have given our NATO allies more than often a run for the money during joint maneuvers since the creation of the Bundeswehr

This is war, not an exercise. You're not a proper ally if when the chips are down you're refusing to help out like others are. How would you like it if Germans personnel were stuck in a remote and most dangerous part of a country, and the British Army said "sorry, we cannot come to help because......" when we had the men and equipment to do so?

EDIT: Just to make it clear I'll say that it is German soldiers being betrayed by German politicians, but that Germany as a whole is still responsible for the restrictions placed on the troops and how that affects them & other NATO members.

 

[riksavage]

My intention was not to demean Germany, but simply to make a statement of fact, which is echoed not just by the Brit’s, but the Canadians, the Dutch, Australians and Americans. That there are countries that fight and those that hide behind caveats, whether politically driven or not. You can’t blame the UK’s post war policy for German political cowardice.

We are running out of time whereby countries can still hide behind the notion that NATO is just there to defend mainland Europe. Regardless of its initial founding objectives – the world has changed, NATO must adapt or wither on the vine. The wolf nearest the sledge is not Russia, but the threat represented by asymmetric terrorism financed and coordinated through failed states, which have zero domestic capabilities to deal with the internal threat (Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen etc.). Afghanistan is a NATO sanctioned engagement, yet we are operating to different rules of engagement based on domestic politics, which is simply not acceptable. If Afghanistan fails, NATO will lose all credibility and in my opinion won't survive.

Should the US finally decide enough is enough and withdraw from Europe to focus on other regions, Britain can either tie itself to a bureaucratic antiquated European military structure or seek allies elsewhere. The English speaking nations may offer such an opportunity as we share the same regimental system, command structure; the same level of ‘eyes-only intelligence’ (UK, Canada, US & Australia), which is not shared with the other European powers.

Remember more and more people in the UK are becoming sceptical about Europe and believe we have more in common with our anglophile partners outside the union.

 

[Firn]

We should discuss here the British Army and not offend other nations and men.

The question here is: Will the British Armed Forces face serious cuts even while being involved in a long guerilla war in Afghanistan? And if, what and who will get hit by them?

 

[gf0012-aust]

We should discuss here the British Army and not offend other nations and men.

To reinforce what Firn has already stated.

Can all posters go in and clean up their previous entries to remove material which could be considered offensive.

3 days for housekeeping. After that the Mods will use their own discretion