Defence debate is bankrupt

Just listened to Defence Minister, Bob Ainsworth, outline plans for the Strategic Defence Review.       

It's all very well, but unless government is prepared to ask why we're spending £27 million on a helicopter we could have had for £8 million, we will only experience defeat and retreat.

Until we scrap the protectionist scam at the heart of the defence acquisition process, it will always be a question of what to cut and where the axe should fall.  Proposals for 10-year spending cycles and partnerships etc merely blur the lines between customer and supplier, which we should in fact be reinforcing.

The price of defence protectionism is that our armed forces can do less.  It is depressing that so few of those who fancy themselves as "experts" in the field are unable to see it.

UK defence suffers not just from a bankrupt Treasury, but a poverty of ideas amongst SW1 people who ought to provide leadership.

Having to do defence deals with the French is the price we pay for defence protectionism. 

Posted on 3 February 2010 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

Hows about we use the savings in improving the process to compensate the Equitable Life victims? http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/pdfs/equitable_life_part_205_guide_and_summary.pdf

Posted on 3 February 2010 14:32 by Dominic Shadbolt

I'm very concerned with the news today that we should get closer to the French and share projects. Apart from he fact that "sharing" to the French means they take 90% leaving us 10% (I've worked on joint projects during my time), surely the obvious people to get close to in Defence purchases are the Americans. They have the technology, build anything they want in large numbers (bringing down the unit price) and a number of our defence companies already have dealings with them.
Or is this another excuse to get closer to the EU?

Posted on 3 February 2010 15:01 by English Pensioner

Good to see you were one of the very few who could actually be bothered to turn up

Posted on 3 February 2010 15:03 by Think Defence

Perhaps the Government could also ask why British forces have spent so long in Afghanistan without adequate chopper back-up. What's the point of having more than 500 helicopters if all but a few of them could not (and still cannot) fly in hot and high warzones?

A refusal to deal with present problems and burying Top Brass heads in ERRF, FRES, an EU Navy, esquisite solutions and other things would appear to be part of the reason.

The MoD have their priorities on fighting spectres in perfect wars where the enemy fights as predicted. Top Brass should have been getting an ear bashing from Parliament a decade ago but the Defence Committee seems as in the bunker as the rest.

Posted on 3 February 2010 15:50 by Gareth

The government has lost its marbles. Reading this from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8494547.stm quote,

"Mr Ainsworth said the "likelihood" was that the Royal Navy would still get its two planned new aircraft carriers but refused to be drawn on American-built Joint Strike Fighters intended to fly from them."

Aircraft carriers without aircraft to fly from them, wow. These carriers are being built around the American Joint Strike Fighter. If they don't use these planes then they have four options,

1) Bring the old Harrier back into production.

2 & 3) Redesign the carriers with steam catapults, to take the French Rafale or the American Hornet. Bear in mind they are cutting steel on the first carrier at the moment.

4) Abandon having carriers.

Many believe the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter won't be built as the Americans have no real need for them.

Posted on 3 February 2010 18:53 by Tedgo

But Mr Carswell, we could not have had a Black Hawk, with what we need to actually make it useable, for £8m. It is costing Taiwan £32m, as demonstrated here:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/so-how-much-is-a-blackhawk/

There is a HUGE difference between what it costs to buy an airframe and what it costs to use it.

I strongly suspect the £27m for Future Lynx you quote includes some support as well as the airframe, while the £8m you quote for Black Hawk includes nothing at all apart from the airframe.

Posted on 3 February 2010 20:54 by Tony Steel

I should say though, thank you for turning up today. It's a shame 95% of your colleagues weren't interested.

Posted on 3 February 2010 20:57 by Tony Steel

Douglas, have you seen the new uknda paper on defence issues? It's called UK Defence Needs and addresses the issues raised by the Green Paper. It is available through their website at the below address if you, or any of your readers wish to download it. I would, as a member of that organisation, be very interested in your thoughts should you have the time to read it.

http://www.uknda.org/uk_defence_needs/n-536.html

Posted on 3 February 2010 21:22 by thomas

The Americans have no problem protecting their defence industry. If we stopped ordering from British defence companies, do you think those companies would improve or do you think they would go bust? If they go bust, will there be more or less competition in the market? If less, will it be more or less expensive for us to procure defence equipment in the future? It strikes me that the only result would be another dead industry in Britain.

Posted on 4 February 2010 12:19 by Simon Gordon

Defence spending , think of a number, present it to the public and multipy it by 8 after the overspend. As Arthur Daley would say " Its a nice little earner"

Posted on 4 February 2010 15:47 by Glenn

"Having to do defence deals with the French is the price we pay for defence protectionism."

So, since we have to do deals with the French to build (civilian) nuclear power stations - having de-skilled in that area decades ago - is that also a sign of protectionism?

Posted on 5 February 2010 10:07 by Russ Williams

So you're saying it's better to just buy our stuff from the USA, and have them control when and where it's serviced, or even if we can use it, than to team up with one of our European allies to reduce costs and further our mutual defence?

Sorry, Douglas, but sometimes you just come across as hating Europeans for the sake of it.

It's a shame, because without that strand in your character, you'd make a fine thinker.

Posted on 5 February 2010 12:07 by Steve

"surely the obvious people to get close to in Defence purchases are the Americans...Or is this another excuse to get closer to the EU?"

I would argue from a geopolitical viewpoint that an excuse to get closer to the EU is a good thing.

I'd rather we were a real partner in a European alliance, than treated like an insignificant poodle yapping at the master's ankles, which is how the USA view us.

Just look at our "independent" nuclear deterrent. It's not independent at all. The French deterrent is.

We should team up with our European friends, as this is where our long term allies will be. The USA has another sphere of influence in the Americas.

Too many people are living in the last (or even the 19th) century in terms of our outlook. The future is European, not being a lackey of the US.

Posted on 5 February 2010 12:10 by Steve

Make A Comment