Defence cuts based on poor intelligence
20 December 2010
With the Christmas bells starting to ring in our ears it is no time for me to detain you with a lengthy blog this week.
However, as usual, there is a great selection of new products in this issue, and I also had a very interesting response to my blog last week that I wanted to share with you.
The thrust of my argument in ‘BAE feels the cuts’ was that the private sector may well fall victim to cuts in public spending, rather than be the saviour of the economy that the government hopes it might be. I had a number of people saying that the real hope lies with the SME’s, but that banks were still a bit slow in coming forward with the finance that these companies need.
However, I did have a fascinating letter that specifically looked at the decisions made by MoD, particularly with reference to cutting Nimrod and Harrier programmes. The following respondent wished to remain anonymous, but his career included working as an avionic technician for the RAF and a flight test engineer for BAE. He clearly is in a position to correct a few of my assumptions, but is also in a position to give an authoritative overview of the consequences of the cuts. He wrote:
As today (15th December 2010) is the last day of 'in-service' Harriers with the last flights at RAF Cottesmore, I read your article with interest.
I suspect (but feel strongly) that the government does not have an appreciation of the complexity and inter-dependence of the UK armed forces and UK arms industry.
After reading your article I feel I must comment on the ages you mention for the Nimrod and Harrier - these would be correct for when these aircraft types entered service, but the Harriers in service today (the GR7 & GR9 - similar to the USA AV8A/B) are a fairly new piece of kit, and are more modern and much more capable than the aircraft involved in the Falklands War. The Nimrod MRA4, although based on an ageing airframe (the Comet / early Nimrods), was in effect almost a new aircraft built with modern engines and electronic systems. With the Nimrod we would have had an independent long-range reconnaissance and surveillance ability - with the retiring of the Nimrod fleet this will leave us without this important platform.
It has always been a dilemma for the UK - do we develop and fund home grown defence systems and aircraft, so that we can maintain a technological lead? Do we partner with other countries, such as France (Concorde, Jaguar), Germany and Italy (Tornado), Germany, Italy and Spain (Eurofighter / Typhoon)? Or do we simply buy off-the-shelf (though with the possibility of less capable kit or reduced functionality) from the USA?
Regarding the decommissioning of the Ark Royal, and the retirement of the Harrier force today, we have lost the ability to project power or react to a remote situation where land-based aircraft cannot get there owing to range (even if supported by inflight refuelling), or because there are no landing rights nearby. It is a bad decision to lose proven and capable ships and aircraft, pilots and engineers/groundcrews, that will not easily be replaced at short notice, while the future of the new carriers and the aircraft to operate from them is still unclear, on intent or future in-service dates.
Regarding the knock on effect of defence cuts on the UK defence industry (dominated as it is by BAE), it will obviously lead to job cuts, and there will be more to come as BAE Systems rationalises its production capacity (as current Typhoon production draws to a close), its operations and support of UK forces. There will then be the effect on the lower tiers of high tech manufacturers and suppliers. Unless companies such as BAE keep an eye on the future (and have funding and support from UK MoD) for the next combat aircraft after Typhoon, training aircraft after Hawk, and it's share of involvement in the JST, the job cuts recently announced will only be a fraction of what is to come. What then for UK industry taking up the slack of UK public job cuts?
Finally, it is not about nostalgia for these aircraft - although it will always be present. That would be the case for the Spitfires and Vulcans! But it is about maintaining aircraft and experienced personnel which are bought and paid for by previous investment in equipment and training, after that it is less costly to keep going than start from scratch. The manpower that worked on these aircraft today will be your senior NCO's and senior officers and aircrew of the future when new equipment enters service.
The UK government's decision - and I guess complicity of the MoD and senior commanders in the armed forces - is very short sighted. If we learn nothing from history we should remember that it sends a dangerous signal to our enemies, and would be enemies.
That was the end of his contribution, for which I thank him.
It only remains for me to wish all of our readers a happy Christmas and let us hope that 2011 is a fulfilling and enjoyable one for us all.
Tim Fryer
Contact Details and Archive...
Most Viewed Articles...