After reading/scan-reading the two docs, personally I thought the new UK Coalition Govt appears to have done a comprehensive job in assessing the current state and near-future state of a very wide range of state/non-state security issues that will impact on the UK and its wider global and economic interests.
And is addressing the need for the UK's armed forces (and intelligence and police services) to be better equipped to deal with these various threats by providing a range of resources that offers better mobility, protection, are networked, are more interoperable with its allies and partners, but still retains (albiet in reduced numbers) traditional warfighting capabilities for state-on-state conflict.
Clearly something had to give. Especially post Cold War in the absence of any credible near future major power conflict situation, a previous Labour Govt/MoD aquisition programme appearing to be stuck in a Cold War mentality involving costly and 'fat' equipment (I'm thinking heaps and heaps of Typhoons and F35's, 12x T45's, 2x CVF's versus say 4-5 smaller and versitile types possibly etc). To me the new Govt is balancing the current and future needs and is being more realistic
under the current (and near future) economic circumstances.
Eg The SDSR doc:
Pg 16
Globalisation increases the likelihood of conflict involving non-state and failed-state actors. Stateon-state conflict will not disappear, but its character is already changing. Asymmetric tactics such as economic, cyber and proxy actions instead of direct military confrontation will play an increasing part, as both state and non-state adversaries seek an edge over those who overmatch them in conventional military capability. As a result, the differences between state-on-state warfare and irregular conflict are dramatically reducing.
China is not/will not be the same threat as the previous USSR was. Unlike the inward looking and paranoid Soviets (whom were ready to achieve MAD if push came to shove), China is embracing globalisation, trade and technology cooperation. They won't want to risk all this (and the instability of their billion plus population) with a conflict with the major powers including the UK (in fact why would China even want to attack the UK)?
Granted China has their agenda and aren't always playing by the rules and norms of western societies and govts etc. Hence the UK Govt's efforts to bolster against cyber espionage and cyber terrorism, have flexible and deployable armed forces, ISR, ISTAR, etc, is a very good move. Especially if they can help shore up her "interests" in Asia (ie with allied nations etc).
Incidentally my only criticism would be in relation to
Part 5 Alliances, there is no mention of the UK's FPDA committments and the need (IMO) for a more visible UK presence in those parts again, to bolster the UK's trade, economic, defence and diplomatic presence with her friendly allied ASEAN nations there (I suppose that simply comes under the broad "Commonwealth" umbrella). Which means the US in particular, is still seen as the security guarantor to alot of ASEAN nations, meaning they are more willing to buy US weaponry and systems (exports). UK needs to step up its presence IMO and for you guys, it ultimately means greater need for UK assets to project power (like the Falklands etc).
Ok this is a Navy thead, I'll get on topic. The Carriers. It's not quite all gloom and doom. Ok, the UK has the CVF's coming but at least there is no plan to immediately axe one or both of them. Anything could happen over the next several years that might cause a rethink on the current plans to only operate one.
Eg Pg 23
This new carrier-strike policy is consistent with the Strategic Defence and Security Review’s overall approach of holding defence capabilities at different levels of readiness appropriate to the strategic context. It makes strategic sense to focus on developing a more effective and appropriate carrier-strike capability to deal with the uncertain evolution in type and scale of potential threats from various states in the next decade and beyond. To provide further insurance against unpredictable changes in that strategic environment, our current plan is to hold one of the two new carriers at extended readiness. That leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier-strike capability; or to re-generate more quickly a two-carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability. The next strategic defence and security review in 2015 will provide an opportunity to review these options as the future strategic environment develops. Retaining this flexibility of choice is at the core of the Government’s adaptable approach.
There, all hope is not lost!
There is mention of the T26 needing to be more affordable and flexible (which leads to exportable). If this can be achieved and manning costs reduced (eg over the T22 and possibly better than the T23) then the future suggests the possibility is there for more T26's than the current 13x T23's. (It is a pity 3x T23's were sold a few years ago and instead possibly the T22's .... as I suspect this Govt would have kept the 16x T23's due to their lower running costs over the T22's).
The RN, with its other strategic assets is still a major player. All is needed is to build upon a future fleet more suited to the current world situation.
Edit: must have took me an hour to type this, I now see Swerve has covered the Carrier situation above.
:
