UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 6° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Review will shape future of Britain's armed forces

Pressure of fighting war on two fronts forces first strategic overview for 11 years

By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent

The review will consider the effectiveness of defence projects like the £76bn Trident missile programme

EPA

The review will consider the effectiveness of defence projects like the £76bn Trident missile programme

The Government has announced it will set up the first strategic defence review in 11 years to shape the future of Britain's armed forces at a time of military commitment abroad and economic hardship at home.

However the final process is not due to start until after the next general election and the Conservatives said they would have their own agenda for the review if they won government.

Ministry of Defence officials have spent eight months preparing for a wide-ranging study. The Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, told the Commons yesterday that a Green Paper would be published next year setting out the parameters of the review.

Mr Ainsworth said a comprehensive study had become necessary again, a decade after the last one, because the demands facing the military had "inevitably changed".

The issues to be covered would include the lessons learnt from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, partnership of the military with other government departments, conflict prevention, high-tech warfare, the aspirations and views of personnel and the procurement of equipment.

The pressures of fighting a war on two fronts, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the increasing competition among service chiefs over restricted resources has led to repeated calls for a fresh strategic defence review.

Army chiefs have been particularly vocal in questioning why billions of pounds are being spent on ships and fast jets when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been land-based. Future conflicts of the 21st century, they hold, will involve similar unconventional warfare. Only 10 per cent of the procurement budget, they point out, is spent on land forces.

Projects under threat include the Royal Navy's two aircraft carriers, which spurned directly from the last strategic review, when they were seen as critical to conducting expeditionary warfare abroad. The first ceremonial cutting of steel for the 65,000 tonne HMS Queen Elizabeth took place yesterday. However, with delays and a cost overrun of £1bn, the ships are considered to be one of the projects most vulnerable to being scuppered. Economic problems may also put the £76bn Trident missile system under threat. The RAF, too, faces calls to slash numbers in its £20bn Eurofighter Typhoon fleet.

The outgoing head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, has said that a "Cold War" mentality in ordering equipment was not suitable in the post 9/11 age.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has in turn warned of "sea blindness" – neglecting the Navy – and the RAF head, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy has sought to defend the Typhoon programme.

The incoming head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, former commander of the Nato forces in Afghanistan, set out his vision for the military in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute. His diagnosis was generally well received and parts of it were echoed in a report into defence written by Lord Robertson, the Defence Secretary when the last strategic review took place, and Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon which stated that Britain should focus on capabilities such as light and mobile units, special forces and unmanned "drone" aircraft.

General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the Army, has called for a "national debate" on defence. He told The Independent yesterday: "This is a step in the right direction and I hope that it will come up with the right ideas for the strategic defence review. There is absolutely no doubt that there is a need for a thoroughgoing examination of all the issues. A lot of it, however, is political and it would be interesting to see what the Tories do with it all if they happen to form the next government."

The shadow Defence secretary Liam Fox said: "This announcement represents the last gasp of a dying Government under a Prime Minister who has never given the Armed Forces the priority they deserve.

"We nevertheless welcome it as long overdue, as long as the work will serve to inform the full strategic defence review which a Conservative government is committed to undertaking."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Review will shape future of Britain's armed forces
[info]mikem1 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:05 am (UTC)
As long as BAe exists, any Defence Review will be hamstrung.
Defence Review
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:19 am (UTC)
As always with any Defence Review the Army will be clobbered heavily, with the reserve forces decimated, training areas solld off for development and decisions taken from the military to the public sector.

The Navy will be fairly safe as the Senior Service, but they could do without the upgrade to Trident, especially when we see the US and Russia agreeing to reduce their nuclear stockpile.

Air Defence will also take a battering as new purchases will be for local air defence roles, with the man on the ground becoming less important.

New Labour, drops our borders, drops our spending on defence, throws our money at global warming and global aid.

Traitors.
Defence Review
[info]beetlehead wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:40 am (UTC)
Aircraft carriers are the modern equivalent of the big-gun battleship: expensive white elephants which need screens of support vessels and are absurdly vulnerable to silent-running (and cheap) diesel-electric attack submarines. As ever, the British military establishment is planning for the last war. Oh, and we could also save a pound or two if we stopped going along with patently insane US adventurism like the invasion of Iraq...
Defence Review Must Be Meaningful:
[info]neil639 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:44 am (UTC)
For over 60 years now, since the end of the Second World War, our politicians in the UK have not come to terms with the fact that Britain is not a world power (we probably never were, although we once did have a world presence - a different thing altogether). We have kept enormous Armed Forces, far more than will ever be needed for the defence of the UK, because our politicians have insisted on this so-called world role, sadly at the expense of the country's industry and infrastructure.

The so-called independent nuclear deterrent has never been "independent" of America (it was obtained by Foreign Secretary Bevin the late 1940s as a "status symbol" of he considered was a great power, and since Suez in 1956 it is America which dictates when and where we can fight wars. The USA reluctantly allowed Thatcher the Falklands War, but did not give full military and intelligence information, and of course they allow us to participate in their own dirty Middle Eastern wars which are the self-proclaimed Bush crusade against Islam, being fought solely to keep Western hegemony over the Middle East.

Whether we in the UK like it or whether we don't, and there are plenty who don't, Britain is not a world power, and has not been for 60 years, which can go round the world invading Third World countries in order to impose or support puppet governments. Nor should we be.

Our Armed Forces are much diminished since the end of the Second World War, but only in line with our much diminished world role. Since 1945 defence cuts have been imposed equally by Labour and Tory governments alike (remember, shortly before the Falklands War the Thatcher government proposed the sale or scrapping of our aircraft carrier force as it then stood). Today, we can well afford to lose both the prohibitively expensive proposed aircraft carriers, and the equally prohibitively expensive Trident missiles, and we would then be looking at something far more realistic for a very small island moored permanently a few miles of the mainland of Europe.

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date