Тихи
Starosedelac
- Poruka
- 162.114
Where does Britain now stand as a world power? Not too far from Belgium
Analysis of the MoD cuts By Trevor Royle Diplomatic Editor
Share
6 Mar 2011
Everyone in uniform knew armed forces equipment was going to be slashed.
Everyone knew that redundancies were on the horizon ... but they hoped it would be a case of equal pain for all the three armed services.
In fact, now the small print in last year’s much criticised Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) is gradually emerging, it is evident the cuts will have a drastic and far-reaching effect on Britain’s position as a world power.
Over the next four years the Ministry of Defence has to deliver “efficiency savings” of £4.3bn from its annual budget of £36.9bn and there are very real fears this means that it will be impossible for the UK’s armed forces to deal with the current tempo of operations, especially in light of the unrest in the Middle East and new strategic perceptions created by the crisis in Libya.
Should that happen, warns a senior army officer with experience of planning operations in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, the armed forces might not be able to recover their current expertise.
“I’m not saying that we will be relegated completely but we will become distinctly inferior to what we are at present, more like Germany or perhaps even Belgium or Denmark. We’ll also lose our skill sets and it will be very difficult for us to retain current doctrinal practice especially in combined operations.”
The officer has a point. Within the coming year the army will be the smallest it has been since the end of the Napoleonic wars in the early nineteenth century. Throughout Britain’s military history there have always been substantial cutbacks and reductions at the end of most conflicts. But this is the first time major economies have been instituted in a time of serious conflict – as many senior officers point out, Britain’s armed forces have been engaged in Afghanistan for more than 10 years and it is frequently forgotten the operation in Helmand province is a major war. Despite this, recent cuts have seen Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft equipped with expensive hi-tech equipment destroyed without ever taking to the air, forcing the closure of RAF Kinloss and leaving the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet without any aerial cover. Two squadrons of Tornado aircraft have been axed and the brand new Sentinel surveillance aircraft faces a similar fate.
Other cuts will have equally far-reaching consequences. Compulsory redundancy will be imposed on 11,000 personnel, many of whom have seen service in Afghanistan or are engaged on active operations. Initially, it was denied those in Afghanistan would be included but now it’s clear the veterans will not be safe when the cull begins in a few months – 5000 from the army, 3300 from the Royal Navy and 2700 from the Royal Air Force, including crew in training. That was the unkindest cut of all and prompted a young army officer, who has two tours of Helmand in his knapsack, to say: “No one minds putting their balls on the line. It’s what we’re paid to do and it’s what we’ve been trained to expect. But to get them sliced off by the government, that’s taking emasculation too far.”
Some idea of what these decisions will mean for the future can be gauged from last week’s muddled response to the violence in Libya. Shorn of a working aircraft carrier equipped with fast jets, and with the army reduced to only five functioning multi-role brigades, senior British commanders would have been hard pressed to mount any kind of intervention operation, whether it was of the aggressive or humanitarian variety .
As it was, even simple operations took a huge effort to organise. It took time to whistle up the C-130 Hercules transport aircraft used to save civilians whose lives were under threat. Several hundred of those rescued by sea in Benghazi only escaped because the frigate HMS Cumberland was passing through the Mediterranean on its way home to the breaker’s yard.
The situation is bound to get worse. When Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox was in opposition he made it perfectly clear the defence budget was under severe pressure and there was simply little money available to save cherished projects or to invest in the future. Last week, almost a year into his period of office, he was forced to concede there was more pain ahead and 2011 was going to be a difficult year for the wellbeing of the armed forces.
Having been summoned to the House of Commons to explain why redundancies were being introduced, Dr Fox could only agree the cuts were inevitable due to a new shortfall of £1bn between the country’s military commitments and the available budget. His terse comment spoke volumes about what lies ahead: “Of course the budgetary pressures continue.”
Predictably, the defence cuts have sparked a fierce debate, both within the forces and among retired senior commanders who are dismayed by what is happening. Among the most vociferous critics has been Admiral Lord West, a former First Sea Lord and a security advisor to the previous Labour administration, who warns potential enemies will take comfort from the revelation of the country’s perceived military and naval weakness. When SDSR was published he described the decision to scrap modern naval and air force equipment as “strategically and financially perverse”.
Lord West also claimed most senior army and navy commanders believe the retention of the Harrier jet fighter is a better option for supporting ground forces and enforcing protective measures such as “no-fly” zones. Ironically, that latter idea was proposed last week by Prime Minister David Cameron as the best means of saving Libyan lives from Gaddafi’s warplanes.
Some experts, however, such as Professor Malcolm Chalmers of Whitehall think tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) believe the armed services should regard economies as “an opportunity, not as a death sentence”. He would prefer to view the planned cuts as “a major opportunity for the Government to put defence plans back on a sustainable path”.
Meanwhile, Professor Corelli Barnett, an expert in the political and military history of post-1945 Britain, has also put forward a plea for a complete rethink of the UK’s foreign policy. He said: “It is quite clear to me we must, as a state, pull out of all global military and financial entanglements that do not unquestionably and directly promote the security and wealth of the British people in the United Kingdom.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...orld-power-not-too-far-from-belgium-1.1088807
Engleska je definitivno PRDNULA U CABAR
Dolazi vreme novih sila . Sila sa istoka. Dolazi vreme Rusije i Kine
Analysis of the MoD cuts By Trevor Royle Diplomatic Editor
Share
6 Mar 2011
Everyone in uniform knew armed forces equipment was going to be slashed.
Everyone knew that redundancies were on the horizon ... but they hoped it would be a case of equal pain for all the three armed services.
In fact, now the small print in last year’s much criticised Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) is gradually emerging, it is evident the cuts will have a drastic and far-reaching effect on Britain’s position as a world power.
Over the next four years the Ministry of Defence has to deliver “efficiency savings” of £4.3bn from its annual budget of £36.9bn and there are very real fears this means that it will be impossible for the UK’s armed forces to deal with the current tempo of operations, especially in light of the unrest in the Middle East and new strategic perceptions created by the crisis in Libya.
Should that happen, warns a senior army officer with experience of planning operations in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, the armed forces might not be able to recover their current expertise.
“I’m not saying that we will be relegated completely but we will become distinctly inferior to what we are at present, more like Germany or perhaps even Belgium or Denmark. We’ll also lose our skill sets and it will be very difficult for us to retain current doctrinal practice especially in combined operations.”
The officer has a point. Within the coming year the army will be the smallest it has been since the end of the Napoleonic wars in the early nineteenth century. Throughout Britain’s military history there have always been substantial cutbacks and reductions at the end of most conflicts. But this is the first time major economies have been instituted in a time of serious conflict – as many senior officers point out, Britain’s armed forces have been engaged in Afghanistan for more than 10 years and it is frequently forgotten the operation in Helmand province is a major war. Despite this, recent cuts have seen Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft equipped with expensive hi-tech equipment destroyed without ever taking to the air, forcing the closure of RAF Kinloss and leaving the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet without any aerial cover. Two squadrons of Tornado aircraft have been axed and the brand new Sentinel surveillance aircraft faces a similar fate.
Other cuts will have equally far-reaching consequences. Compulsory redundancy will be imposed on 11,000 personnel, many of whom have seen service in Afghanistan or are engaged on active operations. Initially, it was denied those in Afghanistan would be included but now it’s clear the veterans will not be safe when the cull begins in a few months – 5000 from the army, 3300 from the Royal Navy and 2700 from the Royal Air Force, including crew in training. That was the unkindest cut of all and prompted a young army officer, who has two tours of Helmand in his knapsack, to say: “No one minds putting their balls on the line. It’s what we’re paid to do and it’s what we’ve been trained to expect. But to get them sliced off by the government, that’s taking emasculation too far.”
Some idea of what these decisions will mean for the future can be gauged from last week’s muddled response to the violence in Libya. Shorn of a working aircraft carrier equipped with fast jets, and with the army reduced to only five functioning multi-role brigades, senior British commanders would have been hard pressed to mount any kind of intervention operation, whether it was of the aggressive or humanitarian variety .
As it was, even simple operations took a huge effort to organise. It took time to whistle up the C-130 Hercules transport aircraft used to save civilians whose lives were under threat. Several hundred of those rescued by sea in Benghazi only escaped because the frigate HMS Cumberland was passing through the Mediterranean on its way home to the breaker’s yard.
The situation is bound to get worse. When Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox was in opposition he made it perfectly clear the defence budget was under severe pressure and there was simply little money available to save cherished projects or to invest in the future. Last week, almost a year into his period of office, he was forced to concede there was more pain ahead and 2011 was going to be a difficult year for the wellbeing of the armed forces.
Having been summoned to the House of Commons to explain why redundancies were being introduced, Dr Fox could only agree the cuts were inevitable due to a new shortfall of £1bn between the country’s military commitments and the available budget. His terse comment spoke volumes about what lies ahead: “Of course the budgetary pressures continue.”
Predictably, the defence cuts have sparked a fierce debate, both within the forces and among retired senior commanders who are dismayed by what is happening. Among the most vociferous critics has been Admiral Lord West, a former First Sea Lord and a security advisor to the previous Labour administration, who warns potential enemies will take comfort from the revelation of the country’s perceived military and naval weakness. When SDSR was published he described the decision to scrap modern naval and air force equipment as “strategically and financially perverse”.
Lord West also claimed most senior army and navy commanders believe the retention of the Harrier jet fighter is a better option for supporting ground forces and enforcing protective measures such as “no-fly” zones. Ironically, that latter idea was proposed last week by Prime Minister David Cameron as the best means of saving Libyan lives from Gaddafi’s warplanes.
Some experts, however, such as Professor Malcolm Chalmers of Whitehall think tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) believe the armed services should regard economies as “an opportunity, not as a death sentence”. He would prefer to view the planned cuts as “a major opportunity for the Government to put defence plans back on a sustainable path”.
Meanwhile, Professor Corelli Barnett, an expert in the political and military history of post-1945 Britain, has also put forward a plea for a complete rethink of the UK’s foreign policy. He said: “It is quite clear to me we must, as a state, pull out of all global military and financial entanglements that do not unquestionably and directly promote the security and wealth of the British people in the United Kingdom.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...orld-power-not-too-far-from-belgium-1.1088807
Engleska je definitivno PRDNULA U CABAR
Dolazi vreme novih sila . Sila sa istoka. Dolazi vreme Rusije i Kine
Poslednja izmena:
