First of all, In order to get my most controversial view out the way, I think Trident does need replacing. Secondly, I have some ideas regarding the defence of this United Kingdom if the Shadow Cabinet is ready for them.
Personally I am in favour of very large cuts to conventional forces; we might be able to sell this as long as we can retain a nuclear deterrent and the ability to defend the Falklands.
Not sure where we stand RE treaty obligations with NATO and especially the French, though.
Regardless what we need an conventional force for (Beyond what AndyC has already said)is to be able to offer humanitarian relief, evacuation of British Nationals, support of UN peacekeeping missions, genocide and ethnic cleansing prevention and intervention, military support for peoples liberation movements fighting tyrants and other Global crises such as Pirates, worldwide and in cooperation with our global partners.
But I agree with AndyC in that we do not need 100,000s of Soldiers to accomplish such.
Bring it on Charlie! My own stance is that a strong navy is essential, a large army is highly arguable and an RAF oriented mainly towards C4ISTAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4ISTAR) is required. I do have some ideas for novel weaponry/platforms however.
OK, so I think what we need to establish is firstly what we want our army to be able to do, and secondly what resources the military would need in order to fulfil those objectives (and how much of a dent those resources are going to put into the budget).
There is a lot of money in the defence budget and if we don't cut it from there, we're going to have to cut it from elsewhere. We need to bear that in mind.
Oh, agreed - as I said, a large army is arguable. In the extreme. What do we want one for? I think we seek to intervene in too great a depth too often. And what use are tanks in todays day and age - either you have air superiority (in which case a tank is an excessively slow method of getting an explosive payload to a target) or you don't (in which case a tank is an expensive mobile coffin-to-be)? There's plenty that can be cut from the Land budget in my opinion. Give some to strengthen the Naval budget and bank the rest for other Government areas. The RAF can make do with restructuring its current force ratio (noticeably fewer fighters, a layered mobile SAM system or two and focus on C4ISTAR for the rest).
We do need to increase the size of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, but I would oppose any further cuts to the army. I'd recommend maintaining a three carrier force, scrapping our procurement of the F-35, and buying the F-18 Super Hornet instead, immediately. The carriers would be fully CTOL capable, of course. We need a Nimrod replacement, and I think their's a proposal for a strike variant of the Typhoon out their to replace the Tornado. Five Squadrons of the Typhoon and five of the ''strike'' Typhoon might do :) .
I think we can probably recoup costs simply by drawing down in Afghanistan and leave Defence RDEL and CDEL pretty level. That'd free up a couple of billion. Defence RDEL has taken a 10.5% hit and CDEL a 9% hit (despite going ahead with the carriers, new subs, and JSF). We'll be able to level off Defence without harming schools or housing.
I'd support our withdrawal from Afghanistan, for sure. We've far overstayed our welcome. The military needs time to rest and recuperate anyway, as a whole. We also need to think about starting on the Type 26 frigates, as well as a new LHC.
Interesting. I agree with the unified physical capability standard - if males have to reach standard X in order to be deemed physically suitable, then standard X is the guideline, not a lower one for females.
There is one psychological aspect about front-line combat troops: there is apparently some evidence that soldiers can get irrational when female peers are under threat. I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be: I remember a very senior officer saying that he personally couldn't see any issues against front-line women soldiers apart from this, but "an army full of soldiers that had no problems with a woman being dragged away by her hair under threat of gang-rape was not one he'd like to serve in". Apparently he was referencing an issue with a female American soldier in Somalia - like it or not, women soldiers captured in combat run more of a risk about their treatment by captors then male soldiers do.
I think that in practice, Special Forces like SAS and SBS would be highly likely to remain totally or almost totally male - a woman who could pass the required physical standards would be Olympic level.
In regards to ' there is apparently some evidence that soldiers can get irrational when female peers are under threat.' If it can be conditioned in, it can be conditioned out.
True. How long have you got, though? If the irrationality is from the entire upbringing (we are conditioned almost from birth to see the setup as "males protect females", and my reading is that it would take a lot of near-brainwashing to get soldiers to override that at a visceral level. To be honest, I doubt that it's even possible after adolescence - the paradigm is too entrenched at a deep level. I personally can see no holdups to any human's suitability for any role in the Armed Forces (subject to physical fitness for the role), but the psychological and sociological issues of the demographics in question cannot be skated over. To be honest, I often think that females are, if anything, better suited to more senior and strategic positions, but that could just be down to my experience of female officers, who often seem to average better than male officers in my opinion (on the whole, anyway. It could, of course, be a selection bias: it is possible that to put oneself forward for roles which until relatively recently were seen as not suitable for females and to stand out sufficiently to be selected and promoted that they have to be betterthan average to start with)
If you can override people's ingrained instinct not to kill others, you can override their instinct to prioritise the protection of women. The best way to get rid of this bias is to bring women onto the frontlines.
I don't, however, think it's an important consideration, as the number of women joining up would be minimal.
Personally I am in favour of very large cuts to conventional forces; we might be able to sell this as long as we can retain a nuclear deterrent and the ability to defend the Falklands.
ReplyDeleteNot sure where we stand RE treaty obligations with NATO and especially the French, though.
I disagree. I think we need to return to mid 1990 levels of force, and I think we can rely on alot of popular support for this.
DeleteSo... why do we need an army, exactly?
DeleteI feel distinctly lukewarm on Trident.
ReplyDeleteRegardless what we need an conventional force for (Beyond what AndyC has already said)is to be able to offer humanitarian relief, evacuation of British Nationals, support of UN peacekeeping missions, genocide and ethnic cleansing prevention and intervention, military support for peoples liberation movements fighting tyrants and other Global crises such as Pirates, worldwide and in cooperation with our global partners.
But I agree with AndyC in that we do not need 100,000s of Soldiers to accomplish such.
Bring it on Charlie!
ReplyDeleteMy own stance is that a strong navy is essential, a large army is highly arguable and an RAF oriented mainly towards C4ISTAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4ISTAR) is required. I do have some ideas for novel weaponry/platforms however.
OK, so I think what we need to establish is firstly what we want our army to be able to do, and secondly what resources the military would need in order to fulfil those objectives (and how much of a dent those resources are going to put into the budget).
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of money in the defence budget and if we don't cut it from there, we're going to have to cut it from elsewhere. We need to bear that in mind.
Oh, agreed - as I said, a large army is arguable. In the extreme. What do we want one for?
ReplyDeleteI think we seek to intervene in too great a depth too often.
And what use are tanks in todays day and age - either you have air superiority (in which case a tank is an excessively slow method of getting an explosive payload to a target) or you don't (in which case a tank is an expensive mobile coffin-to-be)?
There's plenty that can be cut from the Land budget in my opinion. Give some to strengthen the Naval budget and bank the rest for other Government areas. The RAF can make do with restructuring its current force ratio (noticeably fewer fighters, a layered mobile SAM system or two and focus on C4ISTAR for the rest).
I think we can safely scale back the size of the army massively, I see no way we are going to face a large scale ground invasion or do any of our own.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need are Aircraft Carriers.
We do need to increase the size of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, but I would oppose any further cuts to the army. I'd recommend maintaining a three carrier force, scrapping our procurement of the F-35, and buying the F-18 Super Hornet instead, immediately. The carriers would be fully CTOL capable, of course. We need a Nimrod replacement, and I think their's a proposal for a strike variant of the Typhoon out their to replace the Tornado. Five Squadrons of the Typhoon and five of the ''strike'' Typhoon might do :) .
ReplyDeleteWell I can't see your budget going up so...
DeleteI have an idea for public sponsorship, for example, my local regiment (The Rifles) could be sponsored by people in Dorset, Devon, etc.
ReplyDeleteAs long the defence budget doesn't decrease, that'll be acceptable.
ReplyDeleteYeah, we'd be much better off cutting the budget for schools and housing instead.
DeleteI think we can probably recoup costs simply by drawing down in Afghanistan and leave Defence RDEL and CDEL pretty level. That'd free up a couple of billion.
DeleteDefence RDEL has taken a 10.5% hit and CDEL a 9% hit (despite going ahead with the carriers, new subs, and JSF).
We'll be able to level off Defence without harming schools or housing.
I'd support our withdrawal from Afghanistan, for sure. We've far overstayed our welcome. The military needs time to rest and recuperate anyway, as a whole. We also need to think about starting on the Type 26 frigates, as well as a new LHC.
ReplyDeleteWe shall be dropping gender restrictions from all branches and roles in the military.
ReplyDeletePresumably with a unified physical capability standard for field roles?
DeleteOf course
DeleteAs long as the current physical standards are kept, this is possible. Particularly for special forces and things.
DeleteI also have an idea for amalgamating the various Guard Regiments.
Interesting. I agree with the unified physical capability standard - if males have to reach standard X in order to be deemed physically suitable, then standard X is the guideline, not a lower one for females.
ReplyDeleteThere is one psychological aspect about front-line combat troops: there is apparently some evidence that soldiers can get irrational when female peers are under threat. I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be: I remember a very senior officer saying that he personally couldn't see any issues against front-line women soldiers apart from this, but "an army full of soldiers that had no problems with a woman being dragged away by her hair under threat of gang-rape was not one he'd like to serve in". Apparently he was referencing an issue with a female American soldier in Somalia - like it or not, women soldiers captured in combat run more of a risk about their treatment by captors then male soldiers do.
I think that in practice, Special Forces like SAS and SBS would be highly likely to remain totally or almost totally male - a woman who could pass the required physical standards would be Olympic level.
In regards to ' there is apparently some evidence that soldiers can get irrational when female peers are under threat.' If it can be conditioned in, it can be conditioned out.
DeleteTrue. How long have you got, though? If the irrationality is from the entire upbringing (we are conditioned almost from birth to see the setup as "males protect females", and my reading is that it would take a lot of near-brainwashing to get soldiers to override that at a visceral level. To be honest, I doubt that it's even possible after adolescence - the paradigm is too entrenched at a deep level.
DeleteI personally can see no holdups to any human's suitability for any role in the Armed Forces (subject to physical fitness for the role), but the psychological and sociological issues of the demographics in question cannot be skated over.
To be honest, I often think that females are, if anything, better suited to more senior and strategic positions, but that could just be down to my experience of female officers, who often seem to average better than male officers in my opinion (on the whole, anyway. It could, of course, be a selection bias: it is possible that to put oneself forward for roles which until relatively recently were seen as not suitable for females and to stand out sufficiently to be selected and promoted that they have to be betterthan average to start with)
If you can override people's ingrained instinct not to kill others, you can override their instinct to prioritise the protection of women. The best way to get rid of this bias is to bring women onto the frontlines.
ReplyDeleteI don't, however, think it's an important consideration, as the number of women joining up would be minimal.