18/08/2010
If we don't pay for Trident, Britain will count the cost

GEORGE Osborne's insistence that Trident's £20bn replacement must be paid out of the Ministry of Defence's budget has placed Britain's future security in jeopardy.

It may win him some brownie points with the Liberal Democrats, whose poll ratings are in freefall, and undermine Dr Fox, a stalwart and most able Conservative rival. But be in no doubt, should this decision stand, it will have decades long consequences for our defence and none of them favourable. For now our cash-strapped, ultra-lean Armed Forces, will have to be pared back even further and quite unable to do much at all, let alone deter, fight and win conflicts that will almost certainly not be of our choosing.

That's deeply worrying because today's global security backdrop is going to get worse. Nuclear proliferation is accelerating. Threats from further away by those countries numbering some four billion who don't share our democratic values will come closer to home. And Britain, a nation in decline, finds itself squeezed between Western Europe, which has long lost the will to commit troops in scale to defend its own interests, and Obama's America, which has proven itself to be all too flattering to its enemies and, at best, unsupportive of even its most stalwart allies.

And so to Trident which, with its large price tag, may look like a saving. Osborne insists he is "absolutely clear" that this must come out of the MoD budget. Perhaps then he might instruct his Treasury mandarins to share with us the cost-benefit calculation which shows that the UK would be better off succumbing to nuclear blackmail or a mushroom cloud over London?

The real cost of Trident's replacement is not so much the missile as the submarines that carry it. So this has led to some exploring whether it would be better to have nuclear-tipped cruise missiles or land or air-based launch equivalents. Unfortunately, none of these ideas stands up to rigorous debate. There are no nuclear cruise missiles available so they and the warheads will have to be developed at vast expense. In any case, they will have much shorter range, are subsonic and can be shot down with Second World War-era anti-aircraft guns. Moreover, in Britain's crowded, planning-obsessed islands, land-based missile silos are not a serious option. And the chances of the RAF being able to fly all the way round the globe, refuel, get overflight or basing rights to drop a nuclear bomb on a third party and maybe even come back and do it again is laughable.

For all these reasons and more, Trident – a weapon against which there is no defence – is still the best and only real deterrent.

The other high profile candidate for cuts is the couple of Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. It's amazing that only 25 years after the Falklands War – directly caused by the failure to replace the large carriers in the 1960s, we're about to do this again. Costing £5.2bn, contracts have already been entered into for over £2bn so immediate savings here are not as great. The aircraft to go on them are a different story. The Royal Navy could easily switch to the much cheaper and highly capable US-supplied Super Hornet from the hyperexpensive joint strike fighters and save up to £7bn.

Above all though, it's the low-intensity warfare and disaster relief capabilities that aircraft carriers bring which are so vital. It's highly likely that during their prospective 40 year lifespans there will be many occasions where they have been able to evacuate civilians from warzones and lend support to peacekeeping and overseas aid operations. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, and the Department for International Development should take an interest before it's too late. And the best thing any naval ship can do at sea is carry an aircraft which immediately opens up thousands of square miles to observation.

With long range fixed-wing aircraft rather than just helicopters, carriers can do this with ease. Developments in carrier-based unmanned aerial vehicles will take their strategic footprint even further.

Back in the General Election, I always thought Gordon Brown's best moment was during one of the televised leaders' debates. Nick Clegg was waffling on about not renewing Trident at which point Brown said: "Get real, Nick" – to which he had no answer.

Britain's coalition Government needs to get real on defence too. Defence is the most important part of the Government's budget while only making up a mere five per cent of it. To cut projects and capabilities when they cannot be easily or quickly recovered would be a tragic error.

Detractors in the Treasury should also not forget that there's only one thing more expensive than fighting a war and that's losing it. Deterrence through strong defence is the cheapest option of them all. Future generations will long judge the decisions they make now and never forgive them for dropping our guard against possible annihilation.

Dan Lewis is chief executive of the Economic Policy Centre
www.economicpolicycentre.com

15/08/2010
Trident should't lead to more defence cuts

Trident's replacement should be agreed without diverting resources from the core defence budget. UKNDA letter in the Sunday Telegraph.

Leading defence experts call for Trident's replacement to be agreed without the diversion of any resources from the existing core defence budget.

SUNDAY TELEGRAPH LETTERS 15 Aug 2010

SIR – We call upon the Prime Minister to authorise the Trident replacement programme in its entirety, without diverting any resources from the existing core defence budget. Our conventional Armed Forces are chronically over-stretched and seriously under-resourced; they cannot withstand further reductions in their budget in order to fund the Trident replacement.

Forty years of a nuclear deterrent provided first by Polaris, and subsequently by Trident, have proved successful. To be fully effective, the deterrent force must be reliable, secure and available at all times for deployment and use. Only a submarine force can be sure of operating unobserved and undetected by potential enemies.

To decide against replacing Trident, or even to compromise by opting for a less certain, less reliable alternative, would be a major change to policies which have served this country well over decades. It presents real risks to our nation in an increasingly dangerous world

Furthermore, Britain’s place as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council would be threatened and probably lost, leading to a significant diminution of Britain’s influence in world affairs.

All this and more will need to be spelled out to the nation; we hope that the Prime Minister will take the responsible position and retain the nuclear capability without undermining the capabilities of our Armed Forces any further.

Dr the Lord Gilbert
Minister of State for Defence, 1976-1979
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Julian Oswald
Chief of the Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, 1989-1993
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon
Chief of the Air Staff, 1992-1997
Admiral Sir John Treacher
Commander-in-Chief Fleet, 1975-1977
Randolph Churchill
Air Cdre Andrew Lambert (retd)
Andrew Roberts
Allen Sykes
Cdr John Muxworthy RN
Chief Executive, UK National Defence Association
Portsmouth, Hampshire

Click here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/7944874/Trident-shouldnt-lead-to-more-defence-cuts.html

13/08/2010
MoD reform must not become smokescreen for more defence cuts,

..  say Armed Forces campaigners. 

UKNDA News Release

The United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA) has welcomed Defence Secretary Liam Fox's speech setting out his vision for a more efficient Ministry of Defence and more flexible Armed Forces. But the UKNDA has warned that "defence reform" must not become a smokescreen for further cuts to the defence budget or the lowering of Britain's military capabilities.

UKNDA spokesman Andy Smith said: "The Defence Secretary is right to say that to meet the threats to UK security in the years and decades ahead we need to improve the efficiency of the Ministry of Defence and the flexibility and versatility of our Armed Forces. But it is vital that the proposed programme of 'reform' does not become an excuse to squeeze the UK's defence budget even further. 

"For the past two decades, under successive governments, funding for our military has been reduced, year on year, leaving our Armed Forces chronically under-resourced and over-stretched. We have reached the point where we urgently need to increase the resources available to the military, not cut them back further and thus risk serious threats to the security of the nation.

"Any savings that can be made through the Defence Secretary's proposed effeciency drive at the MoD must be reinvested into the expansion of our Armed Forces and the provision of adequate manpower, training and equipment. Only this way can we repair the vast gaping holes that have been left in our defence capabilities by more than 20 years of neglect, under-funding and political short-termism."

-Ends

Media contacts: Cdr John Muxworthy, Chief Executive, e-mail ceo@uknda.org, tel 01264 860693, or Andy Smith, Public Relations Officer and Deputy Chief Executive, e-mail pro@uknda.org, tel 07737 271676 

12/08/2010
We clip the wings of the RAF at our peril

Planned defence cuts belittle the key role of aerial superiority in modern combat, says Con Coughlin.

 By Con Coughlin  Daily Telegraph 12 Aug 2010

The Royal Air Force has come a long way since that grim, overcast morning 70 years ago today, when the first squadron of German bombers flew up the Thames Estuary to launch the Luftwaffe's all-out assault on the British mainland.

By the time 111 and 151 Hurricane squadrons were scrambled from bases around south London to intercept the German attackers, the Dornier bombers had emptied their payloads over Eastchurch airfield, on the north Kent coast, and were already making their return journey across the Channel.

Today's state-of-the-art Typhoon fighters would require just a fraction of the time it took the Hurricanes and Spitfires to intercept enemy aircraft during the Battle of Britain. In the event of a hostile incursion, the crews that are on constant readiness at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire will be airborne within five minutes, and hurtling towards the enemy at supersonic speeds.

Britain may no longer face an existential threat on the scale of the Second World War, or even that of the Cold War, but defending our skies remains a vital part of our national security routine. Earlier this year, it was revealed that RAF fighters are scrambled to intercept Russian nuclear bombers roughly once a month, due to their deliberate violations of British airspace. In addition, air traffic controllers are on constant alert for any sign that a hijacked aircraft is being used for a September 11-style attack on a British target. (Precisely how the RAF would deal with such an eventuality has, thankfully, never been put to the test.)

The modern RAF plays a pivotal role in the defence of the realm, as well as providing Britain with the air cover and support that are essential to the successful prosecution of any overseas campaign. The Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic might never have been persuaded to cease his campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans without the RAF's participation in the successful air war that created the opportunity for Nato troops to deploy in force on the ground.

Similarly, the success of the two campaigns against Saddam Hussein, in 1991 and 2003, owed much to the early air supremacy established by the RAF and its American allies, which enabled the ground forces to complete their missions relatively unopposed.

So why is it, then, that the Coalition appears so determined to eviscerate the RAF's combat and air defence capabilities, during an era when they have been, and remain, in such great demand?

Just because we are currently fighting an Army-led, low-intensity war in Afghanistan, in which attaining air supremacy is not an issue, does not mean to say that we will not need a highly professional Air Force to deal with future threats to our security. The Taliban might not have an airborne capability, but many other countries that wish us harm do – among them Iran, which is busily developing ballistic missiles with the capability to fire nuclear warheads at European targets. If the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions ever required military action to remove that threat, we would need our Tornado GR4 aircraft to attack the nuclear facilities, given that their Storm Shadow missiles are widely regarded as the most effective weapon in the West's arsenal for use on such a mission.

Yet in its desperation to find the 20 per cent cuts that George Osborne is demanding be made from the £37 billion defence budget, the Ministry of Defence is reported to have drawn up plans to scrap the entire 120-strong fleet of GR4 fighter-bombers. The MoD intends to cut a total 295 aircraft from the RAF's fleet, leaving it with fewer than 200 fighter planes – its lowest number since 1914.

The proposed cuts to the RAF are, of course, part of a broader plan to find significant savings among all three Armed Services: the Royal Navy could lose two submarines and its amphibious ships, while the Army is to cut its fleet of 9,700 armoured vehicles by 40 per cent and lose an entire 5,000-strong brigade of troops.

A clearer picture of precisely how the Government intends to manage these cuts will emerge later today when Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, sets out his vision for the future of the Ministry of Defence. But the fact that his department has singled out the RAF to bear the lion's share suggests that the Government is failing to grasp the crucial importance of air superiority in modern combat.

Exhausted infantrymen fighting eyeball-to-eyeball with a determined enemy such as the Taliban might groan about the RAF's glory boys avoiding the brutal mêlée from the comfort of their cockpits, high above the fray. But it would be a different proposition entirely if they also had to contend with bombing raids by enemy aircraft. And making sure that hostile aircraft are not allowed to penetrate British airspace is as vital to our national security as preventing foreign terror cells from blowing up British shopping centres, which is the main reason we currently have 10,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan.

The Coalition may have convinced itself of the need for radical cuts in military spending. But it will be making a grave mistake if, by unfairly targeting the RAF, it surrenders control of the skies to our enemies.

Click here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/7941701/We-clip-the-wings-of-the-RAF-at-our-peril.html

10/08/2010
Taking defence seriously

See CEO's letter in todays' Daily Telegraph,

"Sir,  The Prime Minister, his Chancellor and - if they do not stand up in their millions and protest - the British public, have got the nation's priorities dangerously wrong (Letters August 9).

Defence should be the first priority of any government.  However, our Armed Forces are now weaker and have a smaller proportion of the national purse spent on them, than at any time in the last 300 years.

Money must be found; once lost, our greatest national asset will never be resurrected, or be able to provide us with the safety and security we need.  We must save our Armed Forces and secure our safety."

05/08/2010
Trident is a sacred Tory cow

Trident is a sacred Tory cow, David Cameron meddles at his own risk.

The missle system is not just a deterrent, it is a symbol of what the PM's party stands for, says Benedict Brogan.

Daily Telegraph,  04 Aug 2010

It used to be so easy. In the days when Lady Olga Maitland ran Families for Defence and there were bears in the woods, Conservatives knew very well where they stood on the big issues of the day. Strong defence was as instinctive as low taxes, educational selection, sound money, the Union, Europe and fox hunting. The bad guys were the other side of the Fulda Gap and what mattered was to have enough warheads to take out Moscow, whatever happened.

That was in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher embodied the certainty that defined what it was to be a Tory. It was five minutes to midnight on the Doomsday Clock, and her friend Ronald Reagan could joke about abolishing the Soviet Union – "We begin bombing in five minutes" – knowing that whatever the critics said, it would reinforce the message of deterrence scattered in hardened silos across the American prairie.

For Britain, the silos were put on Vanguard-class submarines to carry our Trident seaborne deterrent, lurking unseen beneath the waves, ready to unleash terrible retaliation on any nation mad enough to strike us first. The Americans provided the technology, we provided the cash – lots of it – and, above all, the political will to be part of the small club of nations who wield the ultimate big stick.

And that is how it has remained since Mrs Thatcher signed the deal: at least one of our four submarines at sea around the clock, standing guard while governments come and go, each commander's safe carrying a handwritten note from the prime minister authorising

Armageddon if things have gone wrong back home. As is traditional, David Cameron wrote his own letters as one of his first acts on entering Number 10: a Conservative honouring the Conservative commitment to Britain's independent nuclear deterrent, one that had remained unshakeable through the days when Labour was prepared to surrender it away.

But what was once so clear to the Tories suddenly looks distinctly vulnerable. Trident is up for renewal, a decision that requires a £20 billion commitment or more over the next 15 years. Labour approved it in government, with Conservative support. But that was before the Coalition and the age of austerity. One minute Trident – like health and foreign aid – is ringfenced, the next it's up for grabs, just another trophy project on the list of possible cuts.

Under the terms of the coalition agreement, the Government is pledged to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent, but the two parties have agreed that Trident "should be scrutinised to ensure value for money" and that the Lib Dems are free to argue for an alternative.

Then Liam Fox went public last month with a demand for Trident to continue to be treated as a budgetary exception, a political project whose development is funded by the Treasury rather than the Ministry of Defence. Presented with the requirement to produce savings of 10 per cent, he did not want to be saddled with responsibility for finding an extra £20 billion to pay for Trident's replacement. "We really can't play fast and loose with the country's defence," he declared, before announcing that he would sort it out with the Chancellor.

That, we now know, was a mistake. Like David Cameron, George Osborne has no qualms about delivering a difficult message to an unreliable and unstable ally, even one with nuclear weapons. He told Dr Fox to pay for Trident himself. Unlike Mr Cameron on Pakistan, he did not accuse the Defence Secretary of "facing both ways" on defence spending, but the implication was plain: the leadership has had enough of being played by the MoD.

As a piece of power politics, it was brutally effective. It put Dr Fox in his box and, according to Downing Street sources, sent a "terrifying" message to the MoD, which must now grapple with the thorniest of problems: before it can deliver the savings demanded by the Treasury for the Comprehensive Spending Review in October, it must decide whether to budget for a Trident replacement and slash everything else, or opt for a reduced deterrent, so recasting a defence strategy that has been fixed for a generation.

To do that it must consider Trident's future, even though Trident was specifically excluded from the Strategic Defence and Security Review. No wonder Whitehall is struggling to find a volunteer to take over as the department's permanent secretary.

There are all sorts of cost-saving variations on Trident that might be considered, including putting off the renewal date, slowing the orders, or even adopting the suggestions put forward recently by Malcolm Chalmers, of the Royal United Services Institute. He points out that our defence strategy for conventional forces is based on the assumption that there is no immediate threat of an attack by another state, whereas our nuclear deterrent still assumes the Cold War's fear of a surprise attack. Whatever the next existential threat we might face might be, we will see it coming. We could save money and be just as secure by having fewer submarines and missiles, and keeping them in stock, ready to be dusted down if we spot something on the horizon.

What should worry Mr Cameron, however, is the anxiety that this episode has triggered across his party. Mr Osborne's willingness to put Trident on the auction block has alarmed those who see too many tactics and too few principles in the Chancellor's style of politics. For those who have had to watch Tory beliefs in low taxes, constitutional continuity and much else sacrificed to buy off the Lib Dems, playing fast and loose with something they thought sacrosanct is a step too far.

For some, it is a simple belief that the Tories are nothing if they allow cost constraints to trump the defence of the realm. But for many, this is not just a dispute about the future of Trident: it goes to the heart of Tory identity and what the party stands for. When David Cameron turned his back on the cameras to walk into Downing Street on May 12, he also left behind the voters, the activists, the MPs who had put their energies and their faith in the idea of a Conservative government. The novelty of government has distracted him from the imperative of taking his party along.

Playing politics with Trident has touched a Tory nerve. It has reinforced doubts that many had been willing until now to set aside. Cabinet ministers say privately that Mr Cameron must return from his summer break with a plan to reconnect with the party he leads. Things aren't as easy as they used to be, and that is precisely why the Prime Minister must explain why so much of what Tories thought he believed in no longer applies. 

Click here:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/benedict-brogan/7927171/Trident-is-a-sacred-Tory-cow-David-Cameron-meddles-at-his-own-risk.html

02/08/2010
UKNDA Vice-President Azeem Ibrahim advises US Assistant Deputy

Vice-President Azeem Ibrahim advises US Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defence Doug Wilson.

31/07/2010
What future for the armed forces?

Acquisition reform, budget cuts, a redefined strategic direction and an idea of Britain's world military role. All are being discussed in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, and a recent Parliamentary panel looked at how, or whether, they can be achieved. Editor Joel Shenton reports…


From Defence Management - Friday July 30, 2010.

Speculation and leaks from the ongoing Strategic Defence and Security Review have turned what could have been the great defence debate into sometimes confused argument populated by conflicting hopes and fears. It's unsurprising that outside observers can have trouble engaging with what's going on, but it is clear to all that defence faces deep cuts.

Participants in a recent panel discussion organised by thinktank the Henry Jackson Society were in agreement that any cuts would effectively force some significant restructuring in the armed forces. There was also agreement that this defence review could have a major impact on the UK's world standing.

Tony Edwards, vice president of the UK National Defence Association, said that with the current review the UK was at a real "crunch point" when it came to deciding its world military role, with serious questions to be answered.

"Do we want to continue with the interventionist expeditionary fighting alongside America on day one foreign policy? If we do we must pay for it," he said.

"We have to be pro-active or end up as an 'interesting little island off northwest Europe' in the scheme of things."

Edwards was not the only panellist to think that since the end of the Cold War, defence has been shuffled down the list of government priorities. After the end of the Second World War in 1945, Britain's status as "a big deal" diminished over time, he said, and with the Soviet threat fading from view at the end of the 1980s, cuts became inevitable.

Two key reviews in the 1990s, 'Options for Change' and 'Front Line First', were "cuts masquerading as defence reviews", said Edwards. Since then there has been little cheer for anyone hoping for increased defence budgets, and he argued that the Strategic Defence Review of 1998 was "underfunded by £1-2bn from day one".

"Douglas Hurd coined this unfortunate phrase that Britain 'punches above its weight'", he said. "It now has to increasingly punch above its budget."

Even former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's revised statement that there had been a 'real terms' rise in the defence budget overall since the 1998 review was picked apart, with Edwards arguing that the defence budget has not increased for several decades.

"The idea that defence budget rose in real terms over the last 12 years is wrong," said Edwards, arguing that the very specific wording of the former Prime Minister's claim hid the truth about the squeeze on defence budgets.

'Real terms', he said, is a measure based on the retail price index, which includes consumer goods. Many consumer goods have fallen in price or maintained a relatively consistent value over the last decade. Defence budgets have to counter a different, considerably higher, rate of inflation.

"Goods and technology from China have got cheaper but we cannot buy defence equipment from China," he said. "Defence was subject to the full European Inflation."

Edwards said the UK was currently "hanging on to the bottom of the first division" as a military power, and was pessimistic about Britain's future military standing after the review. He called into question the 'special relationship' that exists between the British and American militaries.

"I believe America needs a junior partner," he said. "We have been it since 1945. If it's not us, who is it?"

Vice Admiral (ret'd) Sir Jeremy Blackham, former Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, was next to speak. He argued that the scale of the savings needed means that any cuts may not resemble an ordered, strategic reduction in forces.

"Defence spending is 10-15 per cent above the budget," he said. "In these circumstances it is almost certain that any savings will have to be found in the short term from where they are available. They're very likely to follow no logical policy pattern and be very damaging."

Sir Jeremy said that any confusion, lack of strategy and difficulties in the review will be exacerbated by the presence of strong single-service lobbies; not least from the service chiefs.

Critics have long argued that the heads of the armed forces, each with a vested interest in lobbying for changes to benefit their own branch of the armed forces, have been detrimental to any overall sense of strategy or direction in the past. Blackham described Bernard Gray's judgement on the state of the MoD's acquisition process as "shocking"; Gray himself said that procurement decisions could be "bedevilled" by the demands of the single services.

"This is an almost inevitable consequence of having three heads of service who are seen as champions and guardians of their own service," said Blackham. "Helicopters suffered because there is no one service responsible for them and they are not at the top of any service chief's wish list.

"The situation also persuades all the chiefs of staff to decry the others' programmes because that is the only way to preserve their own."

"Such a group can't manage this in a sensible way," he said. "There is no main board in the MoD, but merely an executive committee consisting of the heads of each service. It is a dysfunctional management arrangement.

"Tough choices will be needed and it is those choices that I don't think the MoD is equipped to make.

"They [the service chiefs] are, in a simple phrase, trying to fight the sorts of wars that they would like to fight rather than the wars they might have to fight."

To correct the single service pressures and bad procurement deals that have proved so costly to the ministry over the years, Sir Jeremy suggested that more accountability and transparency was needed every time the MoD faced a big financial decision.

"Penalties should be spelt out and names attached to decisions," he said. "If the management and governance of an enterprise is not correct then that enterprise can not be efficient."

The Ministry of Defence, the inefficient enterprise in question, strongly resists attempts to probe and analyse past mistakes, as MP Dai Havard, long-time member of the Defence Select Committee, revealed.

Referring to the Ministry's acquisition system, Havard said that ministry staff questioned by the Defence Select Committee about departmental overspends had lied about the scale and nature of procurement failings in an attempt to cover them up.

The defence committee's report at the time said that the MoD had been "unhelpful" and at times "deliberately obstructive", but Havard said that that report represented a watered down version of some of the discussions had between committee members.

"'Deliberately obstructive'; that was the nicest I could get," said Havard. "They are lying through their teeth half the time for particular reasons.

"Finding that truth is difficult and they have to come out of that denial themselves. They have got to find a way of breaking that cycle."

While he welcomed the comments from Blackham and Edwards, Havard said that strategy was lacking in the MoD, and while he was glad that a full 'strategic' review was under way, he could not be sure that procurement programmes and restructuring work in recent years had any relation to a defined military strategy.

"All of those things do not make a strategy," he said. "How is all of this brought together? At the moment I don't see it.

"Where are the bits in foreign policy and the Home Office that are knitted to these policies? It is still being done in parts. There is a review of the costs of Trident, but costs only. Where does that fit with other things?"

Overall strategy, the structure of the MoD and the budget question are just three of the many issues confronting the Strategic Defence and Security Review. Hearing the full and frank discussions by the panel on the big defence questions of the day, it was hard not to hope that discussions as potentially positive as these are being had behind closed doors within the review itself.

Click here: http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=14569

30/07/2010
MoD may sell carrier to fill huge hole in defence budget

Talks are taking place at the Ministry of Defence about finding a buyer for one of the ships being built at a cost of £5.2 billion for the Royal Navy.

MoD may sell carrier to fill huge hole in defence budget

By Nicholas Cecil, Chief Political Correspondent

Evening Standard 30^th July 2010

Britain may be forced to sell one of its flagship new aircraft carriers to plug a huge hole in its defence budget.    Talks are taking place at the Ministry of Defence about finding a buyer for one of the ships being built at a cost of £5.2 billion for the Royal Navy.  The financial crisis at the MoD has deepened after Chancellor George Osborne rejected a bid by Defence Secretary Liam Fox to get the Treasury to pay for the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent, which will cost tens of billions.

Senior military insiders are not optimistic about forcing the Treasury to change its stance on funding the upgrade of the submarine-borne nuclear weapons system. But they believe that Prime Minister David Cameron and other Cabinet ministers may be able to persuade the Chancellor to agree a more generous settlement for the MoD once they realise how devastating and politically unpalatable cuts to the military budget would be.

Having to sell one of the two new 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers — HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is due to come into service in 2016, or HMS Prince of Wales, due for launch in 2018 — would be humiliating for the Navy, leaving the UK with only one carrier.

Britain has been building defence co-operation with France and has discussed timing maintenance so that at least one of the countries has an aircraft carrier operational at all times.

A sale to France is thought unlikely but selling to another ally is being discussed. India is understood to have expressed an interest. Simply scrapping one of the carriers is believed to be too expensive due to contractual arrangements.

This morning Lord West, the former head of the Navy who was made security minister under Labour, insisted that the Treasury should fund renewing Trident.

“Last time this was done it came from the Ministry of Defence budget and effectively it cost the Navy about 25 destroyers and frigates,” he told the BBC. “If that happened today, we would not have any destroyers and frigates left.”

He claimed that under the Labour government, the Treasury was due to pick up the bill to replace Trident, though this is disputed by other sources. If deep cuts have to be made, Lord West believes the RAF's Tornado fleet should be axed — which could save about £7 billion.

He accepted there was an argument to end the “continuous at sea” deployment of the Trident nuclear deterrent.

Senior Liberal Democrats believe that the MoD may have to downgrade the nuclear deterrent due to budget cuts which could also see the size of the Army reduced. They have argued that the number of Trident nuclear submarines could be cut from four to three.

Former Lib-Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: “It's self-evident that a decision to renew Trident on a like-for-like basis will have a serious impact on Britain's conventional capability.”

Click here to read more: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23861763-mod-may-sell-carrier-to-fill-huge-hole-in-defence-budget.do

30/07/2010
RAF Tornado fleet "faces axe" in bid to save £7.5bn

by Katherine Faulkner Daily Mail 30 July 2010.

The RAF’s fleet of Tornado jets is expected to be grounded as a result of savage budget cuts imposed on the Ministry of Defence.
Scrapping the 120-strong fleet, which has been a mainstay of the RAF for more than 30 years, would yield cuts of more than £7.5 billion for the MoD, which has been ordered by the treasury to slash its spending by up to 20 per cent.
Grounding the Tornado would save billions more than withdrawing the Harrier jet, which is used by the RAF and Royal Navy, an assessment by the Ministry of Defence revealed.
Scrapping the Harrier Joint Strike Wing, which includes both RAF and Fleet Air Arm squadrons, would yeild only slightly more than £1 billion, according thot the internal document, which was leaked to the Times newspaper.
Both scenarios are thought to involve the closing of some military bases.
The proposed grounding of the Tornado jets would have a dramatic impact on the armed forces.
Losing the planes would halve Britain’s fast jet fleet - raising questions over the long-term viability of the RAF.
But sources close to Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, insisted that amalgamating the RAF with any other service would be "a bridge too far for any government".
The internal document was drawn up as part of the continuing Strategic Defence Spending Review.
The Treasury is demanding the MoD find overall cost savings of between 10 and 20 per cent.
It was agreed by service chiefs and ministers at a meeting of the National Security Council last Saturday that scrapping one of Britain’s three fleets of fast jets would be unavoidable if the brutal savings are to be achieved.
The newest fleet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, is not thought to be under threat - forcing chiefs to choose between scrapping the Harrier or Tornado Jet fleets.
Last night MoD insiders insisted that no final decisions had been made about the scrapping of the jets.
But a senior source told The Times plans to scrap the Tornado were "finding favour".
The Armed forces currently has a fleet of more than 200 jets, including 120 Tornados, 45 Harriers and 42 of the incoming fleet of Eurofighter Typhoons.
But the department has come under increasing pressure to scrap its "unaffordable" equipment programmes.
Yesterday the treasury dismissed an attempt by Defence Secretary Liam Fox to have the estimated £20 billion cost of replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent removed from its core defence budget.
And Dr Fox has himself admitted that the economic crisis was such that the UK could nto protect itself "against every potential future threat."
Last night a spokesman for the MoD said: "We do not comment on the content of leaked documents. The SDSR is considering a wide range of far-reaching options but no final decisions have been made."

Click here to read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298871/RAF-Tornado-fleet-faces-axe-bid-save-7bn.html#ixzz0v9jqGn7D

28/07/2010
UKNDA News Release

Reducing Trident Deterrent Force Would Undermine Britain's Defence, say Campaigners.

Scaling back Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent force could pose a serious threat to the nation's defence capability, according to the UK National Defence Association (UKNDA).

Responding to the proposal in a report by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) that Britain should cut back from four Trident submarines (SSBNs) to three, the UKNDA's Chief Executive, Cdr John Muxworthy RN, said:

"To be effective any deterrent must be certain and constant, not intermittent and therefore unreliable. Repeated studies and long experience have led the Royal Navy and successive governments to conclude that, in order to ensure absolute certainty of availability, at least four SSBNs are required. 

"Last year one of our four Trident submarines was put out of action by a 'freak' accident when a French SSBN accidentally bumped into it, while both were operating underwater on their separate patrols. For the next year this accident reduced our available force to three, barely able (and not for long) to maintain the essential constant presence. 

"To rely on just three submarines would be to court uncertainty because, as last year's incident illustrates, accidents can and do happen - and a constant presence of the deterrent could not be maintained with any degree of certainty. If nuclear deterrence remains a vital cornerstone of Britain's defences, as we in UKNDA believe it should, then it is vital for us to have an effective deterrent force, and this means a minimum of four SSBNs. 

"Either we continue with a nuclear deterrent - in which case we should 'do it properly' - or give it up entirely. There are some politicians who believe in the latter option. But what those who advocate abandoning Trident are in effect saying is that they can foresee every strategic threat to this country for decades ahead and that they do not believe Trident would be of any use in any of these circumstances. This is a huge gamble that no responsible government should take.

"Be certain, be sure. Keep the deterrent and ensure that we have sufficient submarines. Compromising on defence will, sooner or later, cost money - and lives."

-Ends

Media contacts: Cdr John Muxworthy, e-mail ceo@uknda.org, tel 01264 860693, or Andy Smith, e-mail pro@uknda.org, tel 07737 271676.

Notes to Editors:

The United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA) was formed in 2007 to campaign in support of Britain's Armed Forces.

Tri-Service and politically independent, the UKNDA aims to ensure that Britain's fighting men and women are properly trained, equipped, sustained and cared for. The Association's founder-President, Winston S. Churchill, the former MP and war correspondent (and grandson of Britain's WWII Prime Minister), died on March 2, 2010.

For more information on the UKNDA, go to www.uknda.org

15/07/2010
General Sir David Richards to lead the military

By Tim Shipman  Daily Mail
 15 July 2010
 
The Army was celebrating last night after General Sir David Richards, one of Britain's most experienced fighting soldiers, was formally unveiled as the next head of the Armed Forces.
He will take over from Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup as Chief of the Defence Staff in October, after the completion of the strategic defence review.
 
Sir David, the current head of the Army, was personally picked by the Prime Minister after Defence Secretary Liam Fox let it slip that Sir Jock was to be forced out early.
 
Army insiders expressed delight that frontline troops will have "one of their own" taking charge at such a critical time for the war in Afghanistan after years of being told what to do by Sir Jock, who was dismissed by one source as "one of those Johnnies used to dispensing wisdom from 30,000ft".
 
General Richards is seen as a "soldier's soldier", having led operations in a series of conflicts from Northern Ireland and East Timor to Sierra Leone and Afghanistan.
The general, who has recently voiced support for opening talks with the Taliban, will be charged with driving through the surge strategy in Afghanistan to pave the way for a drawdown of British troops.
 
Senior government sources say David Cameron was impressed with General Richards' ideas for making it possible to withdraw British troops sooner rather than later. "If you look at any counterinsurgency campaign throughout history, there's always a point at which you start to negotiate with each other, probably through proxies in the first instance," he said last month.
 
"From my own, and this is a purely private view, I think there's no reason why we shouldn't be looking at that sort of thing pretty soon."
 
Ministry of Defence insiders also said General Richards would quickly be seen as the driving force in the Armed Forces and would now have extra authority to help shape the defence review to help his own service.
 
Mr Cameron said: "Sir Jock has served with real distinction in his time as CDS. I have been grateful for his advice since becoming Prime Minister and know that he will continue to make an extremely valuable contribution. I have no doubt that Sir David will build on this in the years to come, ensuring that all three services-play their part in protecting Britain's national security in Afghanistan and elsewhere."
 
Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British troops in Afghanistan in 2003, said General Richards' role for Mr Cameron will be as important as Winston Churchill's wartime chief, General Sir Alan Brooke. "To have a soldier who has the operational experience, particularly in Afghanistan, will make all the difference."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294841/General-Sir-David-Richards-lead-military.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0tjnBmMfj

15/04/2010
Parties get their priorities wrong ... again

In a total of 308 pages of manifesto promises by the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, barely nine pages are devoted to the state of Britain's Armed Forces. (UKNDA press release)~

Thursday 15 April 2010

PARTIES GET THEIR PRIORITIES WRONG... AGAIN

Only 9 pages out of 308 are devoted to defence and national security in the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos

The three main political parties have all failed to give sufficient attention to the defence of the realm – supposedly “the first priority of government” – in their General Election manifestos, according to the UK National Defence Association (UKNDA).

In a total of 308 pages of General Election promises by the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, barely nine pages are devoted to the state of Britain's Armed Forces. The Conservatives cover defence in four pages of their 118-page manifesto, the Liberal Democrats give the subject the equivalent of three pages out of 112, and in Labour's 78-page manifesto defence warrants only two pages.

“This is an appalling reflection on our politicians and their muddled sense of priorities,” says UKNDA spokesman Andy Smith. “Many of these same politicians still claim that 'defence is the first priority of government' – but the reality is exposed by the scant attention given to the subject in their parties' manifestos.”

The UKNDA believes that the policies set out in the three manifestos are inherently dishonest. “Both Labour and the Tories see Britain continuing to have a strong global role and a proactive foreign policy,” says Andy Smith, “yet neither party indicates how the resources will be made available for our Armed Forces to do this. The fact is that defence has been chronically under-funded since the 1990s, both by Tory and Labour governments, leaving our Forces severely over-stretched and under-equipped. Britain now spends barely 2.2% of GDP on defence, which is woefully inadequate.

“The Liberal Democrats pledge to restore the 'Military Covenant' and improve the welfare of Service personnel and their families, but also call for 'savings' in the defence budget – despite the fact that military funding has already fallen in real terms over the past decade while other areas of Government spending have grown. Rather than accepting the urgent need to increase defence funding, the LibDems see Britain's future defence needs being met through increased European cooperation, which in our view is wholly unrealistic.

“If the Labour, Tory and LibDem parties were honest they would spell out the risks to Britain from a continued failure to invest adequately in defence. Instead, each one of these parties has dodged the fundamental question of defence funding. Only by increasing the budget for our Armed Forces can we repair Britain's fractured military capability and ensure the future security of our country, our worldwide interests, our borders, our trade routes and energy supplies.”

-Ends

Media contacts: Cdr John Muxworthy, e-mail ceo@uknda.org, tel 01264 860693, or Andy Smith, e-mail pro@uknda.org, tel 07737 271676.

Notes to Editors:

The United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA) was formed in 2007 to campaign in support of Britain's Armed Forces. The Patrons of the UKNDA include three former Chiefs of the Defence Staff – Admiral The Lord Boyce, Marshal of the RAF The Lord Craig, and General The Lord Guthrie. Tri-Service and politically independent, the UKNDA aims to ensure that Britain's fighting men and women are properly trained, equipped, sustained and cared for. The Association's founder-President, Winston S. Churchill, former MP and war correspondent (and grandson of Britain's WWII Prime Minister), died on March 2, 2010.

For more information on the UKNDA, go to www.uknda.org

April 2010

The purpose of the UKNDA is to campaign for sufficient, appropriate and fully funded Armed Forces that the nation needs to defend effectively the United Kingdom, its people, their security and vital interests wherever they may be.

Britain’s Armed Forces – Under-funded and over-stretched

Over the past 25 years the percentage of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) invested in defence has been remorselessly reduced (from over 5% to barely 2.2%). This under-funding results in inadequate numbers of personnel and equipment.

Politicians of all parties chant the mantra that “Defence is the first priority of Government” – but the evidence shows otherwise. Defence is low and getting steadily lower in the nation’s list of priorities. All three Armed Services have been repeatedly reduced in size and capability so that they are now chronically over-stretched for the tasks they are given.

Despite the Government’s in-depth Strategic Defence Review twelve years ago (SDR ’98) our Armed Forces’ commitments have not been properly funded, leading to successive further reviews in which recommendations have been excessively ‘adjusted’ or abandoned altogether. The recommendations of SDR ’98 have all but vanished from sight.

In judging the necessary requirements of all three Armed Services it must be remembered that for the past twelve years – uniquely among the major government departments – the MoD received virtually no increase in its budget in real terms, i.e. what that budget could buy. This is because the cost of equipment has increased 6% to 8% a year, far in excess of general inflation.

Hence the Services were starved of necessary resources while having five unforeseen wars to fight (Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq). So the starting point for considering general cuts across the public sector needs to allow for the fact that the scope for defence cuts is small to non-existent.

Britain could of course abandon its historic roles of protecting its global interests and its major commitment to global peace and security but this would be at a terrible price to defence of the realm. No other nation or alliance would be obliged to protect our interests, and the many and growing threats would remain.

Defence policy is inextricably linked to national and international security and to the nation’s foreign policy. Funding for defence must therefore be seen in the context of these requirements, and not in isolation. Britain and British interests worldwide are constantly at risk from international terrorism as well as from rogue states. This means we need a strong commitment to collective security with other democracies.

If we are to maintain our leading international role (UN Security Council), uphold our Treaty obligations (NATO) and play our full part in the world community, alongside the US, we need to enhance our military capability, not reduce it. After years of chronic under-funding, during which time the UK has been forced to ‘punch above its budget’, defence funding must be increased to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Failure to do so will inevitably lead to a significant reduction in Britain’s international influence, as well as irreparable damage to our ability to defend ourselves and secure our borders, our trade routes, our energy supplies and our vital economic interests around the world.

The Royal Navy

The Royal Navy, in both numbers of ships and personnel, is now smaller than at any time in the past century – and it is getting ever smaller.

The 1998 Strategic Defence Review, conducted before the current Iraq and Afghanistan operations began, set out a requirement for two large aircraft carriers (the order was finally placed in 2008), 32 escorts (including 12 Type 45 DARING class Destroyers) and 10 SSNs (Submarines, nuclear powered, hunter killers). Today the carriers are still at least seven and nine years away from completion, the number of escorts has dropped to twenty-three and is declining further, while the number of SSNs is dropping to six, possibly seven.

Only six Type 45 destroyers are being built – a 50% cut in the stated minimum number required. The whole escort flotilla (it can now hardly be called a fleet) will inevitably decline to about 15-17 ships and their average age will rise. The official ‘planned life’ of the existing and already old destroyers and frigates has already been extended in an endeavour to fill in the gap that will otherwise inevitably occur before any replacement escort vessels can be designed, ordered and built. On present plans no new escorts can now even theoretically be expected until 2021 at the earliest.

In 2006, due to insufficient funds to upgrade the aircraft, the Navy withdrew from service its Sea Harrier FA2 air defence aircraft. These aircraft were designed specifically to provide air cover for the Fleet. There is now, and will be for at least another nine years, an ‘air gap’ over the Fleet, unless the RN has a large US Navy carrier battle-group present to provide overhead protection. 

Destroyers and Frigates with much operational life left in them have been sold to ‘save money’ for the Carrier project. The modern Type 23 Frigate HMS GRAFTON and two of her sister ships were sold off (to Chile) for a fraction of their build cost while they all had half (and more) of their planned operational life still left in them. Patrol vessels, no longer required in Hong Kong, but highly suitable to patrol the waters in the Persian Gulf and other maritime security duties, have been sold. Mine warfare vessels (already in short supply) have been withdrawn from service, refurbished and sold of f to other navies. All this is happening at a time when the maritime security problem is rapidly increasing. Maritime trade (90% of all international trade goes by sea) is expanding constantly as Far Eastern economies grow. Fossil Fuel transportation is growing exponentially and 80% of it travels by sea. For the West this includes the trade in LPG (liquid petroleum gas), which is increasing at a rate of 8% p.a. All this traffic passes through a handful of choke points, several of them in very unstable areas.

Trafficking of immigrants, narcotics and arms is growing. Piracy and terrorism at sea are on the increase as are disputes over seabed resources, including now in the Arctic and most recently off the Falkland Islands and the Antarctic where the UK has traditional interests. In response to this situation many nations are increasing their defence budgets and, especially east of Suez, building up their navies. The Australians are rapidly expanding their Navy – only the Royal Navy is shrinking – and fast. We cannot be sure that our vital interests are secure in a world that is becoming daily more dangerous. Business is increasingly being conducted on a “just in time” basis; the holding of lots of stocks and reserves in this country and elsewhere is a thing of the past. If the Suez Canal were to be blocked; if the Straits of Hormuz were to be closed by a regional war (which is far from being unlikely) then this country would feel the pinch within weeks – and our economy stretched even further than it is now within a month.

On the personnel front, numbers in the Navy – about 70,000 in 1982 – are now down to 32,000 – and still shrinking. Opportunities for promotion and thus for improved pay and living standards for Officers and Ratings alike are being reduced with damaging effects on morale. As in other Services the frequency of being sent on operational deployment for the steadily declining numbers of serving men and women available has put a strain on them unsurpassed since WWII. The disparity between the quality of life of naval personnel, particularly married personnel, and the rest of the UK community is now so great as to adversely affect family morale and the retention of skilled personnel.

There are fewer submarines, minesweepers and patrol vessels than ever before. There are insufficient small ship sea going training opportunities for younger officers and ratings, with the result that operational and command experience is lacking and consequently standards are falling.

To save money, and again for no other reason – other than shortage of trained personnel – ships are being secured alongside in a state of ‘extended readiness’ which, experience has shown, all too often results in such ships never again going to sea. Ship replacements are not being planned or ordered in sufficient numbers to sustain the Fleet at even its existing low numbers. Tankers and Fleet Support Ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, absolutely essential to ensure an effective operational Fleet, are in urgent need of replacement (the MARS project). However, after repeated delays invitations to tender have only recently been sent out. At worst, by 2020, on present trends the Fleet could be half of its current size. The Future Surface Combatants (FSC), the planned reliefs for our ageing escort vessels, are still but hopeful twinkles in the First Sea Lord’s eye, with the first one (neither fully designed nor even ordered yet) being theoretically scheduled to be operational in 2021. As shown by the long awaited, long-promised and repeatedly postponed two new large aircraft carriers, ships can take fifteen years, or more, to plan, obtain resources for, build and become operational. In any present day conflict we are operating ships built ten or even 20+ years ago. We must look, plan and allocate adequate resources that far ahead.

Ours is a maritime country yet our Navy is being continually weakened. Over 90% of all our international trade comes and goes by sea. Our very existence depends upon our being able to defend our shores and our sea lines of communication around our island and throughout the world. We are under threat now and for the foreseeable future and we do not have the forces effectively to defend our shores and other vital interests from the growing terrorist threat or other hostile action. The First Sea Lord has said that our previously maritime nation has become ‘sea blind’. If true, and if that is not rectified, then the Nation’s future is bleak indeed and – a naval expression – is increasingly ‘standing into danger’.

The Army

The Army, with trained manpower strength now below 100,000, is grievously short of ‘boots on the ground’ – at least 3,000 short according to the former Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt – and infantry regiments have been merged or disbanded entirely. Since 2001 combined British fatalities from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have reached over 400. That figure for deaths in combat is equivalent to half of that sustained by the Army during its entire four decades of operations in Northern Ireland.

Tour intervals, the time between returning on operations and then deploying again, is supposed to be two years. This Army Board target, to allow for leave, recovery and training, is miles out of sight for most soldiers – particularly engineers, signallers, medics and, of course, infantrymen. At one stage during a recent operation more than 50% of the Army’s signallers were deployed. They could not even be replaced one for one. Individual tour intervals are thus often measured in months not years. The problem is exacerbated by under-strength units who require to ‘borrow’ bayonet strength from other units, who in their turn are further depleted in numbers and individual tour interval times. Some soldiers are turned around on operations within a month or two. This massive pressure must in turn increase the chances of long-term psychological damage to our soldiers.

In 2004, 20% of the soldiers in Iraq were Territorial Army or Reservist soldiers.  Inevitably under the current pressures the Ministry of Defence is now mobilising 1,200 reservists a year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Effectively this means that 5% of all soldiers on operations will always be ‘civilians in uniform’ as mobilisation inevitably implies for deployed duty.

The medical care given from point of wounding to discharge from the Army is now much better, but the provision for visiting families still needs some adjustment, and gaps in funding for care are still being plugged by Service charities.  A major ongoing concern is the long-term care for Army personnel once discharged, especially those on a disability pension. Soldiers really appreciate being looked after by their own kind, and those that have been wounded in the service of their country most surely deserve this.

With the exceptions of a lack of helicopter support and mine-proof vehicles the long-running problem of top quality weapons and equipment for our soldiers on operations has substantially been fixed. The MoD is doing all that it can, within severely restrained budgets, to provide the best it can procure for our troops in the field. But the Defence Budget is under incredible pressure to do all that is needed and the Ministry inevitably has to make hard choices. The 2007 Command Paper issued by the MoD to improve conditions for our troops and their families should help but it remains largely aspirational as it is not supported by apparent additional funding.

In sum, the Army has never had so little to do so much. There is a huge mismatch between what the Army is asked to do and what it can do properly. Inevitably operational effectiveness and morale suffers. The 2008 internal MoD report that 47% of those in the Army were thinking of quitting is hugely worrying. What’s more, the cumulative effect of over-stretch and under-funding has prompted a string of resignations by senior Army officers, including that of Major-General Andrew Mackay, citing continued lack of resources for the Afghanistan mission.

The Army’s means must match its needs far better. Operational commitments seem unlikely to be lessened, in the short term at least, so an increased budget is essential to ensure that the British Army gets the level of support that it really needs when it fights abroad for us.

Britain has been, and is very likely to continue to be, involved in conflicts just about anywhere in the world, and as signatories of the NATO Alliance we guarantee under Article V to defend all member states. In the fast-changing world of the future, the RAF has to be able to respond swiftly and efficiently to new challenges wherever Britain’s interests are threatened. In any potential theatre the RAF would be a vital element in the full spectrum of operations. Yet many of the recent cuts to fund the much-needed improvements in Afghanistan have been found from the daily running budget of the RAF. Several ground-attack squadrons have been or are about to be withdrawn.

The RAF still fields an ageing and expensive fleet, many of which are legacy aircraft from the Cold War and several are 20 years old or more. From a Cold War complement of 93,000 men and women are now fewer than 40,000. Combat aircraft numbers are down by more than half. The severe and continued government underfunding since 1991 makes many of the RAF’s capabilities either just token or unachievable. It takes 15 years or more to design, build and introduce a modern combat aircraft with a service life of approximately 30 years. All the wars since 1945 arrived with little warning, and we must assume that in future conflicts there will to be no time to build more aircraft and no time to train a new generation of crews. This means that whatever the RAF is called upon to do, it will go with the forces in being. Currently, these forces conceal a number of weaknesses.

The Royal Air Force was born from the air attacks on London in 1917. Defending our skies is a sine qua non, not only over the UK, but in any theatres that British Forces operate. Though we now have the Typhoon in the fighter role, technologically we are slipping behind: the US already has the F-22, a 5th-generation stealthy fighter and, on 29 January 2010, the Russians flew the T-50, their first 5thgeneration aircraft. China is known to be following suit and other nations in turn are seeking to acquire 5th-generation aircraft. These aircraft will change the face of the air battle. Without air superiority all other operations become difficult, if not impossible. Witness the plight of the Wehrmacht in 1944/45, and even the Royal Navy in the Falklands in 1982. Just imagine, for example, how different ISAF operations in Helmand might be if Iran took control of the skies.

In Afghanistan, the RAF is as much a part of the conflict as the Army – not just in the obvious roles of air transport (both heavy and rotary), but also in intelligence gathering, radar surveillance of the ground, in UAV operations against Taliban/Al Qaida forces and finally, in the impact of air warnings and the delivery of weapons. Air power substitutes for many thousands of ground forces, and without the RAF’s vital contribution costs would rise and troop levels would have to at least treble.

Operations in the Middle East, and in remote locations such as the Falklands, stretch the remaining RAF establishment. With only eight ageing operational Tornado fighters to defend our northern skies the new Typhoon is essential for our air defences both in Europe and beyond. With the multi-role (Tranche 2 and 3) aircraft now ordered, this aircraft will also be able to switch from air defence one day to ground attack the next, providing the flexibility that is so cost-effective. Though Typhoon is at last being deployed in numbers, the future of the Harrier and the Tornado bomber forces are now in question, but their replacement, the JSF F-35, carrier-capable aircraft, remains unfunded and (in the variant we have decided upon) very short-range. However, until the JSF’s arrival (in 2018?), the RAF will lack any 5th-generation Stealth capability so essential to suppress and destroy enemy air defences; without that capability even the Typhoon would prove highly vulnerable. If we are to retain an effective air capability on a modern battlefield it is essential for this JSF procurement to go ahead.

On the helicopter front there has, at last, been a ray of hope. Twenty-two new Chinooks were ordered in December 2009 to bolster the fleet and make up for battle losses. Despite the recent deployment of the moribund eight Chinooks (see above), until 2012 – when the first of the 22 new Chinooks might arrive – we will continue to have far too few helicopters to defend and transport our troops in Afghanistan. While the recent announcement also stated an intention to procure additional Reaper UAVs, we wait to see if sufficient have been procured to meet the threats.

Our maritime patrol forces face a perilous future. The decision was taken in previous years to reduce the Nimrod MRA4 order from 21 to just nine aircraft, leaving the UK with barely a token capability for controlling the sea lanes. Moreover, a decision on replacing the R1 Intelligence version of this aircraft has been “delayed indefinitely”, leaving a permanent gap in our capability, a capability equally vital right across the board – in all future operations, both high-tech and low.

For the past two years, the UKNDA has argued that we desperately need far more and newer transport aircraft. Much of the existing fleet is 30 years old, expensive to maintain and ecologically unsound. Although the A-400M has at last flown, with A400M30 deliveries postponed for probably another 3-5 years or more, there remains a strong case to cancel that troubled contract and switch to the much cheaper, more capable and available C-17s and C130-Js. Fortunately some of our words have been heeded – at least in part – and an additional C-17 is to be procured.

Though the Royal Air Force can just manage to meet its current operational commitments, it is so run-down in numbers and capability that if there were there to be a conventional war in Europe the RAF would be unable to meet any war-fighting commitments by a wide margin. It will be for the SDR to establish the minimum force levels necessary for current operations and then to show how that force might be quickly ‘ramped-up’ should more strategic threats begin to materialise. In sum, the RAF remains under-resourced both for the responsibilities it is already undertaking and, more importantly for the many tasks it may be called to undertake in future; the SDR must address this deficit.

Joint Operations

Global operations rely on inter-Service cooperation, joint communications, logistics and mutual interdependence to be successful. This has been demonstrated in all of the most recent conflicts, where all three Services and the MoD Civil Servants have made, and are making, contributions to operational success alongside diplomats and NGOs. It is regrettable that the media and some politicians seek to exploit or inflame inter-Service rivalries because they fail to understand the cooperation that has to take place. The role of the Armed Forces in the defence of the realm relies on balanced contributions from each of the Services and each part of the MoD. 

What the UKNDA proposes:

We urge politicians of all parties and persuasions to support and commit to an immediate and sustained real increase in the percentage of GDP allocated annually for defence from its current 2.2% to at least 3%; this would represent an increase of 35-40% over present levels of funding. For more than a quarter of a century governments of all persuasions have constantly cut defence funding and lowered defence in the nation’s list of priorities. Money ‘saved’ from the defence budgets has been poured into the big-spending departments – health, education and, above all, ‘welfare’ in all its many forms.

The UKNDA contends that the severe over-stretch and under-funding of our Armed Forces, and the adverse effect this has upon the nation’s defence, dictates that it is now ‘payback time’. We must stop the salami-slicing of the Armed Forces. Instead, year on year, we need to take just a penny in the pound – 1% – from the inflated budgets of the big-spending departments and reallocate the sums saved to the defence of the United Kingdom.

Put truth back into the oft-repeated claims of all politicians that: DEFENCE IS THE FIRST PRIORITY OF ANY GOVERNMENT.

The Threats

By Winston S. Churchill, Founder-President, UKNDA*

We live in a dangerous and unstable world. Following the demise of the Soviet Union, the direction and nature of the threats to the security of the UK and her interests worldwide are more diverse and even less predictable. Looking back over the past 25 years, there were few who foresaw Argentina’s attack on the Falkland Islands in 1982, Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, or the Al Qaeda attack on the Twin Towers that provoked the Allied retaliation against Afghanistan.

Since the time required to bring major new equipment programmes into service for any of the three Services is in the range of 10-15 years, any future conflict will essentially have to be fought with the equipment ordered today. There will be no time to build & equip new divisions for the Army, new squadrons for the RAF or new ships for the Royal Navy – hence the vital necessity of the UK maintaining a serious, strong and balanced Defence capability.

Immediate & Near-Term Threats (up to 5 years)

The UK Homeland – The threat remains high, not merely from self-detonating Jihadis in our cities, but from aerial or seaborne attack against our civilian population with chemical, biological, dirty-bomb or even nuclear devices. HM Coastguard does not begin to have the manpower or equipment to do the job its name implies, especially given our lengthy and exposed coastline. Nor indeed does the Royal Navy have more than a minimal capability deployed in coastal waters.

Continuing Conflicts in Iraq & Afghanistan – Operations continue at a high intensity against insurgents in Iraq and the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. Logistic and technological support by Iran to our enemies in both countries, especially with high-tech IEDs (improvised explosive devices) capable of penetrating anything other than the heaviest and most modern armour, is responsible for an increasing number of UK and US casualties.

Instability in Pakistan – Pakistan, Britain and America’s somewhat ambivalent ally in the war on terror, rests on a knife-edge of instability. Following the fall of military President Pervez Musharraf, there is a serious danger that Pakistan – proud, and for the time being, sole possessor of the “Muslim Bomb” – could fall to the friends of Bin Laden and the Taliban.

Iran – The unstable “mullocracy”, which already deploys missiles capable of striking US and UK bases in the Gulf, has the range to strike Tel Aviv, Istanbul or Athens, and is working flat out to acquire nuclear weapons to fit on them. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not only denies that the Holocaust ever happened but has described Israel as a “disgraceful blot” that “should be wiped off the face of the earth”. Not since Adolf Hitler has a national leader so brazenly paraded his evil intentions. There is a serious likelihood that this may, in the near future, provoke the United States or Israel – or both – to attack Iran’s budding nuclear capability. In return Iran, which has armed forces far larger than Britain’s, would strike back at Allied forces and bases in the area, and block the Straits of Hormuz, through which pass some 40% of the West’s oil supplies.

Medium-term Threats (5-10 years)

Iran, in the absence of any decisive action to prevent its acquisition of a nuclear capability, will provide a grave and potent threat to its neighbours, including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, no doubt provoking a nuclear arms-race in the Middle East. There are signs of this already.

If Iran were to carry out its President’s threats, 3-4 million Israelis and a couple of million Palestinians may well find themselves consumed in a modern-day Holocaust. Furthermore, the survival of London and cities throughout Europe will stand at the mercy of the Iranian mullahs, regardless of any retaliatory capability we may still possess.

North Korea, unless it sets itself firmly on the path of peace (as there is some indication it may be doing) will be a source not merely of regional instability but, if its nuclear ambitions are realised, a source of long-range missiles, radioactive materials, even nuclear weapons, perhaps even to terrorists.

Longer-term Threats (10 years+)

Here we are strictly in crystal ball territory, though it must not be forgotten that the equipment we order today will be all we will have to defend ourselves with in the 2020s, should an emergency arise.

Russia, on the back of its vast energy reserves has, over the past five years, been dramatically increasing its military spending. Its recent attacks on Georgia, its veiled threats to Ukraine and overt threats to Poland show that Russia is willing and able to flex its muscles in the old Cold War style. Meanwhile, China, which is set on present trends to overtake the United States as the most powerful economy in the world, is also becoming a force to be reckoned with militarily.

Unless these goliaths come to espouse the path of democracy in the interim, there is the obvious danger that territorial ambitions, shortages of natural resources, or a dose of good old-fashioned imperialism – which both have demonstrated in the past – could lead to confrontation either with the world’s largest democracy, India, which is also nuclear-armed, or with the United States and Europe.

Meanwhile, every city of the Western world will continue to be at risk from the nuclear-armed terrorist, armed with a bomb perhaps no larger than a briefcase or a backpack.

While hoping for the best, it is always prudent to prepare for the worst. Only thus can one be ready to face almost any eventuality. At least, following the locust years of disarmament in the 1930s – thanks to the English Channel – we had a year or two’s breathing space to rebuild our defences before the full onslaught of the Nazi war-machine was upon us. The next major war will be strictly a “come-as-you-are” party, with no time to repair the neglect of former years.

*Winston S. Churchill, our Founder-President, died on 2 March 2010.

06/04/2010
Are there votes in defence?

NEWS RELEASE

April 6, 2010

ARE THERE VOTES IN DEFENCE?

Will the nation's defence and security - "the first duty of government" - be properly addressed by the political parties in the General Election campaign? And will the welfare of our servicemen and servicewomen, including those risking their lives in Afghanistan, be in the minds of Britain's voters when they enter the polling booth next month?

The UK National Defence Association (UKNDA) intends to ensure that defence and national security are high up the political agenda throughout the election. To launch its campaign, and to pressure the political parties to give a firm commitment on defence funding, the UKNDA is holding a meeting tomorrow (Wednesday April 7) at the Naval & Military Club, London SW1 on  the subject "Conventional warfare in an unconventional world: Are there votes in defence?"

The speakers are: Admiral Sir Jonathon Band (First Sea Lord, 2006-09), Tony Edwards (former head of Defence Exports at the MoD), Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon (Chief of the Air Staff, 1992-97) and Colonel Bob Stewart DSO (former UN commander in Bosnia). Tickets for this event, which starts at 7pm, are £10 each. For more information or to reserve a place please email Martin Cakebread, ndm@uknda.org.

"Don’t cut defence": The UKNDA opposes any further cuts to the Armed Forces and calls upon the Government and Opposition parties to agree to ring-fence defence spending. UKNDA spokesman Andy Smith says: "Defence and national security should be above party politics. We should aim for a broad political consensus on the need for 'sufficient, appropriate and fully-funded Armed Forces'. Balancing the national budget must not be at the expense of our Armed Forces, which are already severely under-funded, over-stretched and over-tasked."

-ENDS

Press contact: Andy Smith, pro@uknda.org, 07737 271676.

03/04/2010 11:43:00
''Conventional Warfare in an Unconventional World'' - UKNDA Debate on 7 April

UKNDA EVENT: Former heads of the Navy and RAF - Admiral Sir Jonathon Band and Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon - will speak alongside UKNDA board member Tony Edwards and Colonel Bob Stewart at the Naval & Military Club, London SW1, on Wednesday 7th April.~

Conventional Warfare in an Unconventional World

Are there Votes in Defence?

UKNDA London Branch Debate, Naval & Military Club ("In and Out"), St James's Square, London SW1, Wednesday 7th April 2010, at 19:00hrs.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band (First Sea Lord, 2006-09)

Tony Edwards (Former head of Defence Exports at the MoD)

Location:

http://www.navalandmilitaryclub.co.uk/location/index.php

Tickets £10, will be sold on a first come first served basis. To reserve a place please email Martin Cakebread, ndm@uknda.org

17/03/2010 01:00:00
''The War in Afghanistan - and implications for British strategy'' - Panel discussion on 31 March
The UKNDA begins its pre-Election programme of engaging with the political parties by co-hosting a joint event with Westminster Conservatives on Wednesday 31st March. Speakers include UKNDA Vice-Presidents Patrick Mercer MP and Col. Bob Stewart.~

17/03/2010
Prime Minister's admission ''vindicates UKNDA campaign''

UKNDA News Release on the Prime Minister's rectraction of his claims to Chilcot that the defence budget had risen "year on year" since 1997.~

02/03/2010
WINSTON S. CHURCHILL 1940-2010

The President of the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA), Winston S. Churchill, has died after a two-year battle with cancer.~

Tuesday 2^nd March 2010

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (1940-2010) – “A true patriot … generous, hard-working, an inspirational leader”

The President of the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA), Winston S. Churchill, has died after a two-year battle with cancer.

Winston Spencer Churchill was the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill and, like his grandfather, had pursued a career in journalism and politics. As a war correspondent he covered conflicts such as Israel’s Six Day War in 1967. He was a Conservative MP for Manchester (Stretford and later Davyhulme) from 1970 to 1997.

In an echo of his grandfather’s long and sometimes lonely fight against the follies of disarmament and appeasement in the 1930s, he became the founder-President of the UKNDA in 2007. This group was formed to highlight the state of Britain’s chronically under-funded and over-stretched Armed Forces, and to bring pressure to bear on Parliament to increase the resources available for Defence of the Realm.

The group was launched in November 2007 at the Churchill Museum in London’s Cabinet War Rooms. Alongside Mr Churchill at the launch were the founder-Patrons of the UKNDA: the former Foreign Secretary Lord Owen, and three former Chiefs of the Defence Staff – Admiral Lord Boyce, General Lord Guthrie and Marshal of the RAF Lord Craig.

Under Mr Churchill’s leadership, the UKNDA has campaigned vigorously in support of Britain’s hard-pressed Armed Forces and has played a key role in pushing defence and national security higher up the political agenda.

The UKNDA’s Chief Executive, Commander John Muxworthy, paid tribute to the Association’s President, with whom he had worked closely since the UKNDA was formed. Cdr Muxworthy said: “The death of Winston Spencer Churchill after a two-year protracted battle against cancer, bravely and doggedly fought, is a grievous loss to the UKNDA. ‘WSC’, as he used to sign himself, was our very first President. His untimely early death is a greater tragedy for the country which he served devotedly for many years. 

“As President of the UKNDA, WSC was generous, hard working, proactive, and an inspirational leader. A true patriot, WSC followed in the steps of his grandfather, Sir Winston, who, in the 1930s campaigned ceaselessly for this country to rearm in the face of the ever-growing threat from Nazi Germany. Eighty years on, ‘our’ Winston has been fighting the same battle. 

“WSC never faltered in his devotion and commitment to this country and its national and international interests. Our sympathies go out especially to his family who have supported him in his valiant struggle throughout, and especially in the final months when they were at his bedside at all times. 

“Farewell, Winston. If there is a Valhalla, you are surely there.”

UKNDA Vice-President Colonel Bob Stewart added: “Winston was a thoroughly decent man and a great friend to me. I first got to know him 17 years ago and twice during that time I have asked for his help on behalf of other people who really needed assistance – and twice he gave it without reservation. By so doing he changed those people’s lives forever. He did that quietly and without a fuss. I shall miss him terribly. God bless Winston.”

Shortly before his final illness, Winston Churchill wrote a powerful “Appeal to the Nation” highlighting the parallels between the UKNDA’s mission today and his grandfather’s crusade for rearmament in the 1930s.

-Ends

Press contacts:

Cdr John Muxworthy RN, CEO, UKNDA, Tel: 01264 860693, Email ceo@uknda.org

Andy Smith, PRO, UKNDA, Tel: 07737 271676, Email pro@uknda.org

23/02/2010 21:56:00
UKNDA Event: ''Future Conflict and the UK's Strategic Interests''

The UKNDA presents the first in a series of Academic Lectures: 
 
"Future Conflict & the UK's Strategic Interests" 

 at 1900 (prompt) on Wed 3 March 2010, at King's College London - Waterloo Campus.
 
With Afghanistan the current priority for Britain's Armed Forces, our expert panel will examine possible future scenarios that the UK may face, the Force levels the UK may require, the equipment/ industrial strategy needed to provide such a capability, and the political input underlining all of the above.
 
Chaired by the UKNDA's Martin Cakebread, the confirmed guest speakers are:
 
James Arbuthnot MP (Chairman of the Defence Select Committee)
Nick Harvey MP (Liberal Democrat Defence Spokesman)
Prof. Richard Holmes (Military Historian)
Prof. Martin Edmonds (Director of the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies)
Richard D North (Director of the Social Affairs Unit/ Institute of Economic Affairs)
Vice-Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham KCB (Former Deputy Chief of Defence Staff)
Cdr. John Muxworthy RN (CEO of UKNDA).
 
Venue:
Lecture Theatre G73
King's College London
Franklin-Wilkins Building
Stamford Street
London SE1 9NH
 
Nearest tube/ train stations: Waterloo (est. 2 min walk)
 
This is a high level lecture and space is limited. Seats are sold on a first come basis.  Please contact Martin Cakebread to reserve a place by emailing: ndm@uknda.org
Tickets cost £9, and can be reserved in advance or bought on the door (please ensure you reserve a space first). Students go free.
 
Cheques should be made payable to 'UKNDA Ltd' and sent to Martin Cakebread, UKNDA, PO Box 819, Portsmouth, Hants, PO1 9FF.

03/02/2010 20:00:00
UK Defence Needs

The UKNDA launches a major new report on defence funding in response to the Goverment's Green Paper, and to provide context and recommendations for the Strategic Defence Review 2010.~

03/02/2010
UKNDA welcomes Government U-Turn on defence funding

The UK National Defence Association (UKNDA) has given a qualified welcome to the Green Paper on defence and the Government’s stated intention to ring-fence funding for the Armed Forces.~

UKNDA WELCOMES GOVERNMENT U-TURN ON DEFENCE FUNDING

28/01/2010
Closing RAF Cottesmore ''pre-empts Defence Review and weakens Britain's military capability''
Former Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Graydon, is among those speaking out against the Government's "premature" decision to close RAF Cottesmore in advance of the Strategic Defence Review. -UKNDA news release.~

NEWS RELEASE

Thursday 28 January 2010: Release time immediate

CLOSING RAF COTTESMORE “PRE-EMPTS DEFENCE REVIEW AND WEAKENS BRITAIN’S MILITARY CAPABILITY”

The UK National Defence Association (UKNDA) is urging the Government to rethink its decision to close RAF Cottesmore in Rutland.

The UKNDA, which is headed by Winston S Churchill (grandson of Britain’s World War II Prime Minister), is backing the “Save RAF Cottesmore” campaign, and is calling on the Secretary of State for Defence to keep the air base open pending a full review of Britain’s defence capabilities and requirements. Mr Churchill’s grandfather and namesake Sir Winston Churchill, before becoming Prime Minister, campaigned almost single-handedly throughout the 1930s to wake Britain up to the growing dangers to national security and in particular the vital need for effective air defence.

Since the recent announcement by the Ministry of Defence that Cottesmore would be closing, many senior figures from the UKNDA have given their endorsement to the “Save RAF Cottesmore” campaign, including the former Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Graydon GCB CBE, and the former UN commander in Bosnia, Colonel Bob Stewart DSO – both of whom are Vice-Presidents of the UKNDA.

Local campaigners in Rutland have launched a petition to the Prime Minister (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SAVECOTTESMORE) and have built up a network of over 10,000 supporters. They have held meetings with local MPs who share their concern about the impact that the closure of the base would have on the local economy and the damage that would be done to Britain’s air defence capability.

UKNDA Vice-President and former Chief of the Air Staff, ACM Sir Mike Graydon said: “The announcement of the closure of Cottesmore before a serious review of the nation’s defence requirements has been carried out is yet another example of the chronic under-funding of Britain’s Armed Forces.

“I wish the campaign well in attempting to raise this matter before an election. We should surely be hearing from our politicians now, not allow them to hide behind the Strategic Defence Review. Nor should we let them assume that defence cuts are inevitable. The UKNDA has been campaigning for this for quite some time and it is good to see the people of Rutland and surrounding areas making their voice heard too.”

Sir Mike’s expression of support for the campaigners was echoed by Col Bob Stewart, who said: “As the son and brother of RAF officers, and as someone who wanted to join the RAF myself from an early age – until it was discovered that I was colour-blind – I am deeply saddened to hear of plans to shut RAF Cottesmore. Strategically it does not make sense to concentrate all RAF resources in a dwindling number of bases. That increases our vulnerability to enemies that we may not even have a clue about right now.

“If we really have to thin out, then reluctantly we may have to accept that. But for goodness sake it makes sense to maintain as much flexibility as possible. Keep RAF Cottesmore please – we never know when we will need it again.”

The Government is expected to publish its Green Paper shortly, but its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review (SDR) – the first full review since 1998 – will take many months to complete. “In our view,” said UKNDA Deputy Chief Executive, Andy Smith, “it was inappropriate, short-sighted and just plain wrong for Ministers to take the decision to axe RAF Cottesmore in advance of this review. They have rushed into decisions that pre-empt the SDR and in so doing have shown that they are willing to allow the Treasury to dictate the nation’s defence policy.

“The allocation of funding for the Armed Forces should be based on a proper assessment of the threats that we currently face, or that we may face in the future, and of the capabilities needed to deter or counter these threats. We cannot let the SDR become merely a retrospective justification for decisions already taken by Ministers to cut the defence budget.”

-Ends

Media contact:  Andy Smith, Public Relations Officer & Deputy Chief Executive, UKNDA, email pro@uknda.org, tel 07737 271676.

Notes to Editors:

The United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA) was formed in 2007 to campaign in support of Britain 's Armed Forces. Its President is Winston S. Churchill, former MP and war correspondent (and grandson of Britain's WWII Prime Minister) and its Patrons are three former Chiefs of the Defence Staff –Admiral The Lord Boyce, Marshal of the RAF The Lord Craig, and General The Lord Guthrie – as well as The Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell MP and The Rt Hon The Lord Owen. Tri-Service and politically independent, the UKNDA aims to ensure that Britain's fighting men and women are properly trained, equipped, sustained and cared for. For details, go to www.uknda.org

Online coverage of this story:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/111753/uk-group-blasts-plan-to-close-raf-base.html
 http://ukdf.blogspot.com

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/12790/

 http://nosint.blogspot.com 

15/12/2009
''A Defence Review by the back door''
The Government must be prepared to find the money for Britain's Afghan mission without raiding the core defence budget, and there should be no further cuts before a proper Defence Review has been carried out. (UKNDA press statement)~

12/12/2009
Ministers are ''selling the family silver'', says Defence Association
UKNDA accuses the Government of sacrificing vital air defence and undermining its own Defence Review by making arbitrary short-term cuts in the budget for the Armed Forces. (UKNDA press statement)~

06/12/2009
Col. Bob Stewart to fight Beckenham at the next election
Colonel Bob Stewart DSO, Vice-President of the UK National Defence Association and former UN commander in Bosnia, has been selected as the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Beckenham, Kent.~

21/11/2009
Cuts to the RAF would fly in the face of current overstretch
UKNDA press statement in response to suggestions that the Government is considering further cuts to the Royal Air Force including base closures and manpower reductions.~

NEWS RELEASE

DEFENCE CAMPAIGNERS VOICE CONCERNS OVER FURTHER CUTS TO THE ROYAL AIR FORCE

Cutbacks would “fly in the face of current overstretch”

The UK National Defence Association (UKNDA), which campaigns in support of Britain’s Armed Forces, has expressed its deep concern over suggestions that the Government may be considering further cuts to the Royal Air Force including the closure of air bases and reductions to RAF manpower.

The UKNDA, which is backed by a number of former service chiefs including Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Craig of Radley (a former Chief of the Defence Staff) and Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon (former Chief of the Air Staff), is calling on the Government to make clear its intentions regarding the future of the RAF, and warns that any reductions would seriously harm Britain’s already-stretched defence capabilities.

A UKNDA spokesman said: “We note with deep concern reports that the RAF might be cut still further. This, if true, flies in the face of current overstretch and the level of commitments. Defence has been chronically underfunded for a long period by successive governments. Raising the level of debate on defence and national security remains a key objective for the UKNDA, which is the only organisation actively campaigning for proper defence funding."

In the recent UKNDA report, “A Compelling Necessity”, co-authors Andrew Roberts, Allen Sykes and Dr Irwin Stelzer argue that increasing Britain’s defence budget represents the best value for national resources even in the midst of recession, and that any future Strategic Defence Review must, of necessity, recommend an increase in funding for defence and national security.

“A Compelling Necessity” accuses the Treasury of squeezing the defence budget to the point where the Navy, Army and Air Force are competing with one another for an adequate share of the limited resources available. This, say the co-authors of the UKNDA paper, is a clear indication of failure to recognise the potentially wide-ranging dangers to Britain’s security. “The only adequate defence provision”, says the report, “is one that maintains a large, flexible, general contingency in all three Services.”

-Ends

Media contacts:

Cdr John Muxworthy, RN (Rtd)

Chief Executive, UKNDA, email ceo@uknda.org, tel 01264 860693 / 07721 624980.

Air Cdre Andrew Lambert, RAF (Rtd)

Director, UKNDA, email andrewlambert99@hotmail.com, tel 07811 262303.

Andy Smith

Public Relations Officer, UKNDA, email pro@uknda.org, tel 07737 271676.

31/10/2009
UKNDA members elect new Board of Directors
Distinguished military historian Prof Richard Holmes, defence industrialist Tony Edwards and former RAF Defence Director Air Cdre Andrew Lambert are among the newly elected Directors of the UK National Defence Association.~

An election was held for the UKNDA's Board of Directors. There were nine candidates for six places.

Asterisk denotes current Director seeking re-election.

23/10/2009
Commemorating Nelson and Trafalgar
Speech by Lt-Cdr Richard Little RN on behalf of the UKNDA to the Trafalgar Day Dinner at the Trafalgar Tavern, Greenwich.~

15/10/2009
UKNDA LAUNCHES CAMPAIGN FOR LONDON MEMORIAL TO OUR FORCES IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
UKNDA calls for the spare plinth in Trafalgar Square to be made available for a permanent memorial to the services and sacrifices of our brave forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.~

03/10/2009
CAMERON URGED TO HOLD FIRM AGAINST PRESSURE TO CUT DEFENCE

On the eve of the Conservative Party Conference, the UKNDA calls for David Cameron to give a firm guarantee that funding for the Armed Forces would be safeguarded from any public spending cuts under a Conservative government.~

NEWS RELEASE

Saturday 3 October 2008: Release time immediate

CAMERON URGED TO HOLD FIRM AGAINST PRESSURE TO CUT DEFENCE

The United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA) is calling on David Cameron to give a firm guarantee that funding for the Armed Forces would be safeguarded from any public spending cuts under a Conservative government.

With Conservatives gathering in Manchester for their annual conference, the UKNDA is urging Mr Cameron and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne to resist pressure to cut the defence budget, and to consider increasing the share of government funding allocated to defence. This is vital, says the UKNDA, to enable the Armed Forces to “catch up” after two decades of “chronic underfunding”.

Leading members of the UKNDA, including the military historian Prof. Richard Holmes, Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, author and journalist Andrew Roberts, economist Dr. Irwin Stelzer, former head of UK defence exports Tony Edwards, and the former UN commander in Bosnia, Col. Bob Stewart, are among those who will be speaking at the UKNDA’s conference fringe-meeting and calling for David Cameron and his team to give a categorical assurance that a Tory government would not cut defence. The UKNDA event – to be held at the Exchange Auditorium, Manchester Central, at 12.30pm on Monday October 5 – is part of an intensive campaign to persuade the Conservatives to recognise the many and growing threats to national security, and the urgent need to restore “defence of the realm” to its rightful place as “the first priority of government”. Defence funding, says the UKNDA, should be “threat-driven not Treasury-driven”.

In a UKNDA policy paper to be published on Monday, Azeem Ibrahim – Research Fellow at the International Security Program, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University – writes: “Any politician who believes that the Government’s first duty is defence of the realm must reverse the present dangerous downward drift in defence funding. If they do not, then whoever is elected will be remembered as the Prime Minister who let Britain ’s military prowess fatally wither, and recklessly risked national security.”

UKNDA President Winston S. Churchill is spearheading the campaign to convince the Conservatives of the importance of investing in defence. In an echo of the campaign that his grandfather Sir Winston Churchill waged in the 1930s, the UKNDA’s President is warning of the many and growing threats that Britain now faces, and is appealing to the present-day Conservative Party leadership for a clear and unequivocal commitment to national defence.

He says: “Now, almost eight decades after Sir Winston sought to alert the Nation to the folly of disarmament, his appeal for strong national defence resonates once again. Today’s world is an extremely dangerous place. Just think what could happen if America, Britain and our NATO allies fail to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, if nuclear-armed Pakistan were to fall to the Taliban, if the Islamist regime in Iran were to be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, or if a resurgent nationalist Russia decided to repeat its foray into Georgia, or perhaps even into Ukraine…  We need to give our Army, Navy and Air Force the resources they need to provide Britain with strong, effective, efficient defence, capable of meeting the many foreseen and unforeseen challenges that lie ahead.”

-ENDS

For further information or interview opportunities please contact:

Andy Smith, PRO, UKNDA, tel: 07737 271676, email pro@uknda.org

29/09/2009
Defence: The first priority for a Conservative government?

Prof Richard Holmes, Patrick Mercer MP, Andrew Roberts, Dr Irwin Stelzer and Col Bob Stewart are among the speakers lined up for a major UKNDA event at next week’s Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.~

News Release

Defence: The First Priority for a Conservative Government?

15/09/2009
FURTHER DEFENCE CUTS WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC
Press statement by the UKNDA in response to suggestions of further reductions in the defence budget.~

FURTHER DEFENCE CUTS WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC

05/09/2009 00:02:00
Eric Joyce tells UKNDA debate that Britain 'could have been better prepared' for war in Afghanistan

01/09/2009
UKNDA welcomes major new report on the defence industries
Statement by Cdr John Muxworthy, CEO of the UKNDA, in response to the release of the Defence Industries Council report, "Securing Britain's future and prosperity".~

26/07/2009
MINISTERS SHOULD HANG THEIR HEADS IN SHAME, SAYS CHURCHILL

Press statement from UKNDA President Winston S. Churchill in response to the Government's attempt to reduce compensation awards to wounded British soldiers.~

17/07/2009
THE CASE FOR INCREASING THE DEFENCE BUDGET IN THE MIDST OF RECESSION
A major new report by Andrew Roberts, Irwin Stelzer and Allen Sykes for the UKNDA argues that defence funding represents the best value for national resources, even at a time of severe economic crisis.~

NEWS RELEASE

July 17, 2009

ARMED FORCES CAMPAIGNERS SET OUT THE CASE FOR HIGHER DEFENCE SPENDING IN THE MIDST OF RECESSION  

Defence is “the best value for national resources”, says new report

Under-funding leads to rivalry between Navy, Army and Air Force

Funding for Britain’s Armed Forces must be protected from public expenditure cuts, in spite of the heavy financial pressures faced by the Government, and the defence budget should be increased over the next three years to at least three per cent of GDP, according to a paper published today (July 17) by the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA).

In the UKNDA paper, “A Compelling Necessity”, co-authors Andrew Roberts and Allen Sykes argue that increasing Britain ’s defence budget represents the best value for national resources even in the midst of recession, and that any future Strategic Defence Review must, of necessity, recommend an increase in funding for defence and national security.

The paper also accuses the Treasury of squeezing the defence budget to the point where the Navy, Army and Air Force are competing with one another for an adequate share of the limited resources available. This is a clear indication of failure to recognise the potentially wide-ranging dangers to Britain ’s security. The only adequate defence provision, say Roberts and Sykes, is one that maintains a large, flexible, general contingency in all three Services.

Defence funding, the paper argues, should be “threat-driven, not budget-driven”. Britain is at the greatest risk when it is financially weakest, and recessionary pressures world-wide are increasing political instability in already unstable regions. Current and possible future threats to national security are large and growing. The sums required to strengthen Britain ’s military capability are both affordable in the national context and represent excellent value-for-money, even in the present severe economic crisis.

In his Foreword to the paper, the economist Irwin Stelzer highlights the risk to the Anglo-US Special Relationship if Britain fails to invest adequately in defence: “If Britain does not shore up its military,” Stelzer writes, “so that it is capable of holding up its end of the bargain implicit in the Special Relationship, that relationship will be under severe threat. Fortunately, it is deep – culturally, socially, politically and militarily – and can endure temporary strains. But not a permanent decision by Britain to become still another free-rider on US military outlays. Both of our nations will be the poorer if the Special Relationship is no more, and the world will be a more dangerous place.”

The UKNDA paper challenges politicians on both sides of the House of Commons to “convert the existing strong public support for our Armed Forces into an adequate defence provision.”

-Ends

Media contacts: Cdr. John Muxworthy, Chief Executive Officer, UKNDA, email ceo@uknda.org, tel 01264 860693 / 07721 624980, or Andy Smith, Public Relations Officer, email pro@uknda.org, tel 07737 271676.

Notes to Editors:

1. “A Compelling Necessity: The case for increasing the defence budget despite the present severe economic crisis” is published on Friday July 17. Download a copy here. 

Andrew Roberts is a highly accomplished journalist and historian, whose books include Napoleon and Wellington, Eminent Churchillians, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 and Masters and Commanders: How Roosevelt, Churchill and Alanbrooke won the War in the West. He is the editor of The Art of War, a major two-volume chronological survey of the greatest military commanders in history.

Allen Sykes is a retired international businessman. He was lead author of the UKNDA’s first discussion paper, "Overcoming the Defence Crisis", in September 2008, and has had a longstanding interest in political and military history, the Armed Forces, defence strategy and international affairs.

Irwin Stelzer is an American economist and journalist of distinction. He is Director of Economic Policy Studies at the Hudson Institute, and is a regular columnist for newspapers in the United States, Britain and Australia , including The Sunday Times, The Spectator, Weekly Standard, Washington Examiner, Courier Mail (Brisbane) and New York Post.

2. The United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA) was formed in 2007 to campaign in support of Britain's Armed Forces. Its President is Winston S. Churchill, former MP and war correspondent (and grandson of Britain's wartime Prime Minister). Tri-Service and politically independent, the UKNDA aims to ensure that Britain's fighting men and women are properly trained, equipped, sustained and cared for.  For details, go to www.uknda.org

09/07/2009
UKNDA welcomes Nick Clegg's call for 'new commitment' in Afghanistan

07/07/2009
UKNDA welcomes Defence Secretary's SDR announcement
Statement by UKNDA CEO, Cdr John Muxworthy, on the Defence Secretary's announcement that the MoD is to start preliminary work on a new Strategic Defence Review.~

30/06/2009
IPPR 'barking up the wrong tree' on Defence
UKNDA statement in response to the IPPR report. UKNDA CEO Cdr John Muxworthy rejects suggestions that major defence programmes should be cut back, and says the think-tank's report is "fundamentally flawed".~

22/06/2009
UKNDA London Branch gets underway

NEWS RELEASE

UKNDA London Branch gets underway

29/05/2009
Football supporters' club backs Armed Forces campaign
Supporters of League One football club Leyton Orient will be working alongside the UKNDA on behalf of Britain's overstretched Armed Forces.~

05/04/2009
UKNDA raises concerns over Nato call for reinforcements in Afghanistan
UKNDA Press Release in response to statements from the Strasbourg / Baden Baden Summit on increasing the Nato military presence in Afghanistan.~

16/03/2009
UKNDA welcomes public support for Britain's armed forces

02/03/2009 00:01:00
Britain risks losing its global influence if we don't invest in defence
UKNDA press release on the policy paper "A decision the next Prime Minister must make".~

02/03/2009
''A decision the next Prime Minister must make''
Full text of the UKNDA paper by Tony Edwards, "UK Defence Policy: Implications for Equipment & Budget".~

29/12/2008
Thirty years on, Defence funding is still a 'scandal'
UKNDA comment on the Callaghan papers released under the 30 Year Rule.~

14/12/2008
Defence cuts - Press statement by former Defence Chiefs

UKNDA press release with statements by Marshal of the RAF Lord Craig and Admiral Lord Boyce.~

11/12/2008
Defence cuts 'an insult to the Armed Forces'
UKNDA press release in response to the Defence Secretary's statement 11 Dec 2008.~

07/12/2008
Time for Tri-Service solidarity against any attempt to scrap Britain's Harrier force
UKNDA press statement in response to the Sunday Times article on plans to scrap all 75 of Britain's Harriers.~

Sunday 7 December 2008: Release time immediate

05/12/2008
Campaigners warn of 'false economies' in defence