True but the Tories gave us the idiotic Sandy's review that wrote off airforces nearly 60 years ago.
indeed - but the most damaging nail in the coffin was the TSR-2 debacle which resulted in the RAF receiving an arguably a less capable aircraft in general than either the TSR.2 or the F-111 with the Panavia Tornado. IMO.
They also gave us the loon Nott - and the 1982 Defence Review which cut defence spending, decided to remove HMS Endurance, tried to sell HMS Invincible to Australia,and cut naval capability, at the key stage of the cold war - and just when both the US and Russia were thinking more seriously than ever about intense naval operations in the Norwegian n sea - on our doorstep.
True however Nott had a recession to deal with his 1981 White paper was aimed at supporting NATO operations after the equally disastrous 1975 Mason review which actually pretty much scrapped any out of area capability in the first place and placed into motion the overall picture on what we saw in 1981 in the first place, just slightly more of it.
Mason wanted to scrap most of the RAF transport fleet, cut most of the rapid reaction and amphibious troops like the para's and RM. with the focus whilst also reducing budgets in the first place.
Nott's White paper wasn't so much of a defence review, but a budget review. didn't have nearly as much time or money to play with and had to deal with the replacement of the trident. He might have tried to sell invincible - but at least he was keeping illusturious and Ark Royal if i understand correctly.
And it gave us the equally lunatic 2010 review - that scrapped 1/3rd of the RAF's combat power, made us the only G20 power without maritime patrol aircraft, cut the Fleet , produced an aircraft carrier with no aircraft, wasted hundreds of millions changing its mind about what planes to put on the carrier, and cut the army when it had just lost two wars - because it had too few people.
as for this - Britian was in the midst of one of the worst recessions in history, dealing with a Armed forces which had been underfunded yet over stretched in two theatre's of operations. Some things do have to give specifically;
As for the MRA4 - it was
already 7 years late by 2010,
wasn't expected to reach IOC until 2 years years later,
numbers reduced from 21 to 9,
and according to the FT, still riddled at the time of cancelllation, with hundreds of "design non compliances", such as the landing gear working, weapon bays opening and closing, whether the fuel system was safe. AFM has stated that the MRA4 was grounded due to safety concerns at certain points in the flight envelope at the time of cancellation, and might not have even been signed off as safe by the Military Aviation authority!
If we're being honest - the MPA gap stated with labour when they withdrew the MR2 in 2010 with no replacement in servce. After they had been flying for around 40 years. Put the MPA gap blame where it belongs - with the adminstration who oversaw it for 13 odd years, with 7 of those years being late and over budget (even with the reduction of numbers of over 50%! The conservatives were left with a gap, with no aircraft to fill it for another 2 years (at best!) and the proposed aircraft having been plagued with problems, many still to be resolved and no guarantee that they would ever be resolved!
unfortunately you can only do what you can do with what you got. hopefully this years defence review will rectify this gap with a vanilla P-8 or something.
The Carriers without aircraft? - place the blame with Labour who retired the organic fighter cover in the first place, making any actual carrier without it, a white defenceless elephant and delayed the QE's to begin with! There would be little point with a QE with short range, low payload harriers going into theatre when it couldn't even defend itself properly without the SHAR.
About the only competent defence review in post war history was the Labour one of 1998 - which set out the realistic force levels needed for a world that was facing fewer threats than today's. Both major parties since have just ignored what's actually required and reduced the forces regardless. We now have 40-60% of what was then determined to be needed - for a pre 911 and pre Crimea world. Both major parties have been as irresponsible as each other. With Labour it was continuing cuts by Brown's indifference. With Cameron its been one grossly inadequate review, and complete chaos as the services have fought like rats in a sack to grab as much of they can of a grossly inadequate budget, and retain some capability at all.
The SDR was competent. Pity that the forces were overstretched and underfunded for many years with a reccession at the end of it. I would still argue that labour made the more long lasting and damaging gaffes than the conservatives (who still made gaffes nonetheless).
The SDR was competent. Pity that the forces were overstretched and underfunded for many years with a reccession at the end of it. I would still argue that labour made the more long lasting and damaging gaffes than the conservatives (who still made gaffes nonetheless).
Labour in the 60s lurched between objectives, and procurement plans, as they reacted to economic crises. But the RAF at least got some aircraft in the end. TSR 2 is debateable - depending on how multi-role it could have been when strategy became more conventionally orientated post 1967 and 1975 , and how much of the budget it would have absorbed. Along the way, Labour also gave us the through deck cruisers Nott wanted to sell., and Polaris, and Chevaline, and would have given us Trident. Its interestingly, Labour, in the 1998 review, that accepted the need to go back to large carriers - even if thats not why Brown actually built them.
The 2010 SDR was probably the most totally incompetent. review of the bunch - though Sandy's was fixated on missiles, years behind US Stratgic thinking, and totally wrong in his conclusions.
2010's only strategy was that no strategy was needed - as nothing would need to be done for 10 years. It was lifted directly from the 10 year rule of the 1920s and 30s. .After that it was an exercise in setting arbitary money totals that were inadequate. It claimed to be dealing with a massive lack of money to build Labour's programme - and then cut the budget instead of dealing with what was really an underfunding problem.
Because government insisted on irresponsible levels of cuts, the services resorted to trying to preserve their own key capabilities - with no strategic logic guiding the outcome of the cat fight. The RAF dropped anything orientated to supporting the Navy or army, and preserved its air defence and strike mission. It was stuck with buying transport aircraft, and the ridiculously expensive tanker PFI, as the orders couldn't be cancelled, instead of actually preserving its combat force. The army cut support to the Royal Marines, and had its own battles between the elite units, line infantry, heavy units and support units - which left most undermanned and those that were combat capable too few in number. It preserved the ability to reconstitute a big enough army in the future, at the expense of combat capability now. The navy cut its amphibious capability to preserve surface warships, and the carriers, and cut costs by leaving empty weapons magazines on what it was building - in the hope some weapons might turn up later.
The government then contributed by doing a TSR2 and destroying the Nimrods to make a political point, ,and selling off the Harrier force so it could not be brought back later in an emergency. It also came up with unresearched ,.and costly. ideas like changing to a conventional take off JSF - that cost hundreds of millions to reverse later It also conned the service chiefs- by suggesting holes would be filled from 2015 - when the economy had recovered - leaving the services very fed up now that more cuts are promised . We now have a situation where the services have taken measures to be able fill some gaps , like amritime patrol, when the extra money was meant to turn up, only to find even less money turning up.
Its basically a review by people who know nothing and couldn't care less. Its also a symptom of the continuing problem of Prime Ministers failing to set and fund objectives, and not telling their Chancellors what to do.
According to The Daily Mail It looks like Dave is going to re-badge the spying budget in to the MOD side and that will make it look like we are still spending 2% GDP on defence. I'm sure the soldiers, sailors and airmen will appreciate that.
Very typical of this government to mess around with numbers and statistics to make things look not quite what they really are; like re-badging Admirals' pensions as 'welfare'. You just can't take anything at face value from this lot.
According to The Daily Mail It looks like Dave is going to re-badge the spying budget in to the MOD side and that will make it look like we are still spending 2% GDP on defence. I'm sure the soldiers, sailors and airmen will appreciate that.
Very typical of this government to mess around with numbers and statistics to make things look not quite what they really are; like re-badging Admirals' pensions as 'welfare'. You just can't take anything at face value from this lot.
He's also stuck on a simple idea from the late 80s , that he probably picked up in a suitably trendy, superficial, PPE tutorial - that security was now about aid and global warming and internal security threats. The problem is in the rest of the world its about numbers of tanks, ships, planes and nukes, and they are spending heavily on those- and he has no ability to actually notice when reality is not compatible with his own neat argument.
He clearly has no ability to take professional advice, or knowledge of anything much himself. He's also got the Eton attitude that some younger boy will turn up at the last minute, and do what ever needs doing for him , for nothing. Thats otherwise been described as the Tesco mentality - that you can always go and get what you need, off the shelf, at the last minute, when you really have to. The problem this election is he is running against a weaker clone of himself , and a pack of buffoons - but on defence he's making even Farage look more responsible. .
And the US is getting ever more vocal - as its dawning on them just how much the Europeans are freeloading on them. He's now got one of the most liberal national security advisers, in the most liberal US Administration since WW2, telling him he better keep to the 2% request. Its hardly surprising when the US can count, and notes that Australia is doing more against ISIS, and there will soon be only 8 less US fighters based at Lakenheath than in the whole RAF.
According to The Daily Mail It looks like Dave is going to re-badge the spying budget in to the MOD side and that will make it look like we are still spending 2% GDP on defence. I'm sure the soldiers, sailors and airmen will appreciate that.
Very typical of this government to mess around with numbers and statistics to make things look not quite what they really are; like re-badging Admirals' pensions as 'welfare'. You just can't take anything at face value from this lot.
And politicians wonder why they are completely mistrusted. Forget the sleight of hand. Forget the spin and manipulation. Tell us your plans, openly and clearly, and we will decide who to vote for.
And politicians wonder why they are completely mistrusted. Forget the sleight of hand. Forget the spin and manipulation. Tell us your plans, openly and clearly, and we will decide who to vote for.
More slight of hand by the minute. Cameron's spin is now getting absurd. Although Ball's promising not to cut as much as the maximum figure he can dream up for Tory cuts, is hardly reassuring.
We now have people around Liam Fox claiming that there were understandings offered by Cameron to both the defence secretary and the service chiefs in 2010 that the cuts would be followed by some additional funding post 2015, That prevented resignations then. Its clearly what the service chiefs expected - as they maintained enough effort in several gapped capabilities to restore them later (by posting people to other countries on exchange - so thay would maintain core skills) and keeping unit,s that are undermanned, but could be restored with more people.
Ironically, the reason Cameron could never admit this is that the plan was based on the economy and defecit recovering by 2015 - saying he can't now do it admits his economic policy is not where it should now be.
We also have the slights of hand underway on the NATO target - with attempts to get not only the intelligencve services included , but also to include nearly a billion spent on war pensions. The US isn't going to be amused if we count what they don't, and the idea that pensions for Chelsea Pensioners have anything to do with current defence capability is patently absurd. Enemies count men tanks, ships aircraft and nukes - not how many service pensioners are still alive.
Perhaps Cameron's idea is that we should recall theWW2 veterans to fill all the gaps in our defences, fight ISIS, and deter Russia.
More slight of hand by the minute. Cameron's spin is now getting absurd. Although Ball's promising not to cut as much as the maximum figure he can dream up for Tory cuts, is hardly reassuring.
We now have people around Liam Fox claiming that there were understandings offered by Cameron to both the defence secretary and the service chiefs in 2010 that the cuts would be followed by some additional funding post 2015, That prevented resignations then. Its clearly what the service chiefs expected - as they maintained enough effort in several gapped capabilities to restore them later (by posting people to other countries on exchange - so thay would maintain core skills) and keeping unit,s that are undermanned, but could be restored with more people.
Ironically, the reason Cameron could never admit this is that the plan was based on the economy and defecit recovering by 2015 - saying he can't now do it admits his economic policy is not where it should now be.
We also have the slights of hand underway on the NATO target - with attempts to get not only the intelligencve services included , but also to include nearly a billion spent on war pensions. The US isn't going to be amused if we count what they don't, and the idea that pensions for Chelsea Pensioners have anything to do with current defence capability is patently absurd. Enemies count men tanks, ships aircraft and nukes - not how many service pensioners are still alive.
Perhaps Cameron's idea is that we should recall theWW2 veterans to fill all the gaps in our defences, fight ISIS, and deter Russia.
I think it was more than an understanding. I'm pretty sure it was said publicly at the time.
Comments
The SDR was competent. Pity that the forces were overstretched and underfunded for many years with a reccession at the end of it. I would still argue that labour made the more long lasting and damaging gaffes than the conservatives (who still made gaffes nonetheless).
Labour in the 60s lurched between objectives, and procurement plans, as they reacted to economic crises. But the RAF at least got some aircraft in the end. TSR 2 is debateable - depending on how multi-role it could have been when strategy became more conventionally orientated post 1967 and 1975 , and how much of the budget it would have absorbed. Along the way, Labour also gave us the through deck cruisers Nott wanted to sell., and Polaris, and Chevaline, and would have given us Trident. Its interestingly, Labour, in the 1998 review, that accepted the need to go back to large carriers - even if thats not why Brown actually built them.
The 2010 SDR was probably the most totally incompetent. review of the bunch - though Sandy's was fixated on missiles, years behind US Stratgic thinking, and totally wrong in his conclusions.
2010's only strategy was that no strategy was needed - as nothing would need to be done for 10 years. It was lifted directly from the 10 year rule of the 1920s and 30s. .After that it was an exercise in setting arbitary money totals that were inadequate. It claimed to be dealing with a massive lack of money to build Labour's programme - and then cut the budget instead of dealing with what was really an underfunding problem.
Because government insisted on irresponsible levels of cuts, the services resorted to trying to preserve their own key capabilities - with no strategic logic guiding the outcome of the cat fight. The RAF dropped anything orientated to supporting the Navy or army, and preserved its air defence and strike mission. It was stuck with buying transport aircraft, and the ridiculously expensive tanker PFI, as the orders couldn't be cancelled, instead of actually preserving its combat force. The army cut support to the Royal Marines, and had its own battles between the elite units, line infantry, heavy units and support units - which left most undermanned and those that were combat capable too few in number. It preserved the ability to reconstitute a big enough army in the future, at the expense of combat capability now. The navy cut its amphibious capability to preserve surface warships, and the carriers, and cut costs by leaving empty weapons magazines on what it was building - in the hope some weapons might turn up later.
The government then contributed by doing a TSR2 and destroying the Nimrods to make a political point, ,and selling off the Harrier force so it could not be brought back later in an emergency. It also came up with unresearched ,.and costly. ideas like changing to a conventional take off JSF - that cost hundreds of millions to reverse later It also conned the service chiefs- by suggesting holes would be filled from 2015 - when the economy had recovered - leaving the services very fed up now that more cuts are promised . We now have a situation where the services have taken measures to be able fill some gaps , like amritime patrol, when the extra money was meant to turn up, only to find even less money turning up.
Its basically a review by people who know nothing and couldn't care less. Its also a symptom of the continuing problem of Prime Ministers failing to set and fund objectives, and not telling their Chancellors what to do.
Very typical of this government to mess around with numbers and statistics to make things look not quite what they really are; like re-badging Admirals' pensions as 'welfare'. You just can't take anything at face value from this lot.
Indeed Cameron has now accused the generals arguing for the 2% commitment as wanting to sell books. He's clearly not up to the job. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11461643/David-Cameron-hits-out-at-generals-over-defence-spending.html
He's also stuck on a simple idea from the late 80s , that he probably picked up in a suitably trendy, superficial, PPE tutorial - that security was now about aid and global warming and internal security threats. The problem is in the rest of the world its about numbers of tanks, ships, planes and nukes, and they are spending heavily on those- and he has no ability to actually notice when reality is not compatible with his own neat argument.
He clearly has no ability to take professional advice, or knowledge of anything much himself. He's also got the Eton attitude that some younger boy will turn up at the last minute, and do what ever needs doing for him , for nothing. Thats otherwise been described as the Tesco mentality - that you can always go and get what you need, off the shelf, at the last minute, when you really have to. The problem this election is he is running against a weaker clone of himself , and a pack of buffoons - but on defence he's making even Farage look more responsible. .
And the US is getting ever more vocal - as its dawning on them just how much the Europeans are freeloading on them. He's now got one of the most liberal national security advisers, in the most liberal US Administration since WW2, telling him he better keep to the 2% request. Its hardly surprising when the US can count, and notes that Australia is doing more against ISIS, and there will soon be only 8 less US fighters based at Lakenheath than in the whole RAF.
And politicians wonder why they are completely mistrusted. Forget the sleight of hand. Forget the spin and manipulation. Tell us your plans, openly and clearly, and we will decide who to vote for.
More slight of hand by the minute. Cameron's spin is now getting absurd. Although Ball's promising not to cut as much as the maximum figure he can dream up for Tory cuts, is hardly reassuring.
We now have people around Liam Fox claiming that there were understandings offered by Cameron to both the defence secretary and the service chiefs in 2010 that the cuts would be followed by some additional funding post 2015, That prevented resignations then. Its clearly what the service chiefs expected - as they maintained enough effort in several gapped capabilities to restore them later (by posting people to other countries on exchange - so thay would maintain core skills) and keeping unit,s that are undermanned, but could be restored with more people.
Ironically, the reason Cameron could never admit this is that the plan was based on the economy and defecit recovering by 2015 - saying he can't now do it admits his economic policy is not where it should now be.
We also have the slights of hand underway on the NATO target - with attempts to get not only the intelligencve services included , but also to include nearly a billion spent on war pensions. The US isn't going to be amused if we count what they don't, and the idea that pensions for Chelsea Pensioners have anything to do with current defence capability is patently absurd. Enemies count men tanks, ships aircraft and nukes - not how many service pensioners are still alive.
Perhaps Cameron's idea is that we should recall theWW2 veterans to fill all the gaps in our defences, fight ISIS, and deter Russia.
I think it was more than an understanding. I'm pretty sure it was said publicly at the time.