While Lord Justice Scott Baker officiates each week at the Diana inquest
benefit gala for tabloid lawyers at the Royal Courts of Justice, a more
poignant inquest is enacted in the leafy lanes of Oxfordshire. The bodies of
servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are brought here to Brize Norton
airbase and their families are consoled with the brief dignity of an
“unlawful killing” verdict.
Here, too, incredulous coroners hear tales of ill-prepared, underequipped
soldiers stumbling back from what might be a modern Crimea.
They hear of failed helicopters, unguarded vehicles, lack of body armour and
poor medical support. “Unforgivable and inexcusable . . . a breach of trust”
were words used of the defence ministry by Andrew Walker, the coroner, last
week after another tale of woe.
Britain’s military establishment is plunged into battle over what has been
dubbed its “train crash” budget. The Treasury has demanded £1 billion a year
in cuts to amend for what appears to be grotesque cost indiscipline. Every
lobby has been summoned to the colours: defence correspondents, retired
generals, MPs for army constituencies and the Royal United Services
Institute. The blood-stained shrouds of Brize Norton are waved across
Whitehall.
What is clear is that this government made a colossal error on coming to power
in 1997-8. In the Strategic Defence Review (on whose lay committee I
served), George Robertson, the then defence secretary, and John Reid and
John Gilbert, his junior ministers, flatly refused an open discussion.
Having been told to “think the unthinkable”, the review’s authors were told
that the three biggest and most contentious procurement items inherited from
the Tories were sacred.
They were the Eurofighter project (£15-£20 billion), the new aircraft carriers
(£4 billion) and their frigate escorts, and a replacement for the Trident
missile and its submarines (£20 billion). These pet projects of the Royal
Navy and RAF were protected so new Labour would not appear soft on defence.
There was no consideration given to the equipment needs of Tony Blair’s more
interventionist foreign policy. The government decided, in effect, to
pretend that it was still fighting the Russians (and possibly the Germans).
Those decisions locked the procurement budget for more than a decade. Above
all they shut out the army, on which British defence activity has depended
ever since. The army’s unglamorous but urgent need for battlefield
helicopters and armoured personnel carriers was ignored. So, too, were
supplies of such things as grenade launchers, field radios, body armour and
night-vision equipment. This year the Eurofighter, carrier and Trident
projects all came on stream at £5 billion annually between them and the
defence budget has hit the predictable wall.
The first to howl are the chiefs of staff. It is customary at such times for
them to stand as one, arms linked like Roman legions in a square. Yet they
will never adjudicate on priorities. An admiral will not doubt (in public)
the RAF’s need for more jet fighters. A general will never question the need
for carriers. An air marshal will cast no aspersions on Trident. All they
will do is sing in unison, “No defence cuts”.
Nor do ministers dare to take painful decisions for them. Every cut is across
the board. Gordon Brown has let it be known that there must be no talk of
cancellations, only postponements. Carriers may be delayed, Astute-class
submarines may be reduced from eight to four and Type 45 destroyers from 12
to six. The number of Eurofighter Typhoons on order may be slashed. Strategy
can go to the wall but not politics. As one sceptic said last week, “The
chiefs have planned to go on fighting the Russians, but to lose.”
During the apartheid regime in South Africa I had a contact in the state arms
manufacturer, Armscor, who constantly sang the praises of sanctions. He
said, “They have stopped the chiefs of staff from buying glamour kit they
don’t need, such as ships and planes, and forced them to develop stuff they
do.” South Africa duly made the best field artillery gun in the world (the
155mm G5), the best armoured vehicles (Ratel and Eland) and the best desert
boots.
Every debate over British military equipment veers off into chauvinism, into
“sovereignty of supply”, British jobs and political image. That is why the
army must wait until 2011 for a new flight of British-built Lynx helicopters
(at £14m each) instead of buying the bigger American Sikorsky (at £6m)
available this year. How many men will die for this crass decision?
As Lewis Page, a former naval officer, claims in his book Lions, Donkeys and
Dinosaurs, the defence ministry probably spends two to three times overall
what it needs for its equipment. It admits that landing ships are running at
80% over the original price. The biggest current excesses are on Type 45
destroyers and nuclear submarines. More than 10% of the defence budget goes
on such procurement overruns. There is the crisis in a nutshell.
It is perhaps no surprise that Lord Drayson, the procurement minister,
recently vanished to become a racing driver rather than try to reform a
system in which nobody accepts accountability or blame for the most
scandalous mismanagement. Weak ministers adhere to the principle of letting
each service have its share of expensive kit, because anything else would
mean an almighty row.
The old Spanish practices are still in place: Buggins’ turn between army, navy
and air force as chief of the defence staff, a comfortable overseas attaché
network and uniformed officers shadowing Whitehall civil servants. According
to Page there are still more admirals ashore than ships afloat, more air
marshals than squadrons aloft.
Britain is still buying weapons of little or no relevance. Carriers,
destroyers, frigates and submarines date from the days of food convoys and
empire. Interceptor jets are fighting the battle of Britain. Every modern
British war is fought by the army (even the Falklands), for which the navy
and air force should be refashioned as subordinate services.
The reason this does not happen, in Britain as in America, was well stated in
“Kagan’s law”. When the military is asked if it wants more soldiers or a new
plane and is told it must choose one, it always chooses the plane. A large
item of kit does not talk, lives in a hangar, takes longer to deliver (and
pay for) and has fancier lobbyists. Hence there is always upward pressure on
naval and air spending and downward pressure on the poor bloody infantry.
The latest version of Labour’s interventionism, adumbrated by David Miliband,
involves offering “security guarantees” to unstable democratic regimes to
protect them from insurgency. Such wars do not require carriers, nuclear
submarines or jet fighters. They require the one thing the government puts
lowest on its priority list, a well equipped and highly mobile army.
That army, undermanned and ill equipped, is now engaged in the government’s
service in Iraq and Afghanistan. When a British soldier deploys to the
front, his or her family receives a letter from the defence secretary
promising that he has taken “all measures possible to ensure that the
equipment issued to the UK armed forces is both right for the job and right
for them”.
This is simply not true. To take one example, a recent article in the Journal
of the Royal Army Medical Corps pointed out that British troops were taking
longer to get to a field hospital than it took the Americans in Vietnam. Two
hours’ delay in Iraq has become seven hours in Helmand. This often fatal
delay is almost entirely due to the lack of helicopters, caused by a
shortage not of money but of ministry competence.
The British Army is fighting in two countries against forces whose equipment
is primitive and who have never posed any military threat to Britain. In
both it is losing. Money is squandered on equipment that is useless in
either theatre - or in any foreseeable one. For want of that money,
equipment vital to victory is forgone.
In a sane world this might be cause for a revision of priorities within the
defence establishment. Instead, the brass hats continue to squabble to
protect their precious toys and politicians lack the guts to bang their
heads together.
It was the sort of thing that made the Iron Duke weep
- simon.jenkins@sunday-times.co.uk
Sub-contract war fighting and defence of the realm to the Chinese-they will do it cheaply and more efficiently.
Greg, Perth, Australia
Yes, the army swam to the falklands and protected itself from hostile aircraft with SA80's and APC's.
Brilliant.
Graham Martin, Horbury,
No i totally disagree the Army alone didnt fight any wars alone. For starters without the Navy or the RAF how would our forces deploy to these remote parts of the world to fight our wars. Also is it not the Navy and RAF that provide the air cover from the carriers to protect our men on the field,
Nick, Leeds,
Simon is exactly right, why bother buying all these expensive toys which do nothing against the real war we are facing which is terrorism. Did all of the US military might do anything to stop 9-11? More money should be spent on intelligence and homeland security, police forces etc. rather than worrying about aircraft carriers and world domination which is no longer an issue. We will lose Iraq and Afghanistan as most of the alliance have pressure from the public to pull out. These countries are messed up and pose no threat to anyone.
Anthony, Sydney, Australia
simon jenkins is correct in all ways, with all brass hats wanting there own projects to continue, there is no money for new projects for things the defence need now.
The british army is very under developed compared to other nations. We need new transport such as helicopters, APC and peronal weapon systems The SA-80 is prime example of a major blunder, since its amazing test standard in trials. The feedback from the SA-80 was very poor and unlucky for MOD the media made it known to the public. The SA-80 has had update after update to fix problem after problem and it is the SAS only who do not use the SA-80. Why do we keep spending our budget developing systems when there are others already there cheaper to buy from helicopters to APCs & personal weapons for anti tank and anti personal. I guess Mr Gorden Brown has no idea how battles are won and who is needed to win them.
chris, rhuddlan, wales
That is absurd to say the Falklands was fought by the army alone. It took the fleet to deploy and protect the army. It would have been much easier with fleet (real) carriers and F-35s. The fact is that to deploy ground assets anywhere beyond the range of the Tornado is going to require ships, transport planes and naval fighter cover. It is also absurd to pretend you can predict that the home islands won't be threatened in the next 35 years. It is better to buy the EuroFighter and worry about geopolitics later. Every country should have superiority over its own airspace, especially a power such as the UK.
Joseph, Atlanta, GA
Simon Jenkins shoots himself in the foot. "Foreseeable". Quite simply, no one can, or did, foresee almost every conflict we've been in over the last century. War is a 'come as you are' sport. We're still within a single lifetime of both world wars and likely could be within 1 of another. What arrogance to assume his pet projects and modern outlook pervade the whole world. No need to examine the details of this article, they're without foundation and without merit.
Joseph, Bedford,
You're dead right Simon. The last weapon to give a "British" army the edge on a battlefield was the longbow.
Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.
Whilst it is true that the Marines are part of the Royal Navy, when we look at their role in the Falklands and in Afghanistan it is a bit false to imply they are doing their Navy job - rather they are doing an infantry job on the ground, and as a result need the same resources that the Army need (grenade launchers, medevac helicopters etc). A destroyer in Afghanistan is as useless to a Royal Navy Marine as it is to an Army infanteer.
Richard Crawford, Tvierton, UK
What on earth are we doing in Afghanistan ? Doesn't any one read history anymore ? We have never ever succeeded there and never will. We really have stop toadying to those wretched Americans who know little of the world outside their own country. They never appear to look beyond their own noses when they start conflicts around the world.
Neil Richardson, Nerja, Spain
"knows how they would have got there were it not for the navy, protected by Sea Harriers"
Sorry Mr Graham, your a little out of date, troop ships went out years ago, and now the Sea Harrier has gone to
Tk, Munich,
The problem is partly strategy, part procurement -
Yes the high command is probably over-staffed - the strength of the British Army is the NCO's. However - the governments determination to scrap regiments is a problem now that they have run out of troops and rely on the TA to hold the line (something the TA was never designed for and will suffer in the long run for).
Procurement and inefficiency is far worse within the MOD - from scrapping inteligence analysis to consultants hired on the long term.
Perhaps the answer is to establish emergency contigency funds for infantry units - allowing them to purchase off the shelf gear that they need!
Keep the carriers and fighters - you'll need them when you dont have them - and thats what this author is doing - short sighted needs not long term. I worry that the government is not budgeting adequately for the forces in the long term OR short term - whilst wasting money on debacles such as Northern Rock - £100m wasted!
rob, london, uk
in 1997, tony blair's interventionist policy was well served by the building of a new air craft carrier. bosnia, kosovo, and various african dependencies along the coast were all easily accessible by carrier based aviation. for lack of british and european air power, the eu\nato had to have american help in kosovo to soften up the positions on the ground during the air war... so more planes and ships would be good for the RAF and Royal Navy. and dont forget, without the carriers, the army never would have gotten to the falklands. the argentinian air force and exocet would have seen to that. and to protect an air craft carrier you need surface ships. and after the capture of british sailors in the near past, the fleet should be upgraded.
jason, Lake Jackson, Texas
I don't think much of this article. Thank God the author has no say in our armed force's deployments.
leo, durham,
There are several problems interwoven here, like a knotty ball of yarn. First, modern Britain has limited means and modern weapons systems are getting more expensive very much faster than the cost-of-living index. So we do have to make hard choices; everyone cannot have everything they want. Secondly, we have the problems of politics: the pork barrel (of which the building of aircraft carriers in Gordon Brown's constituency is a magnificent example), jobs for the boys, and a desire not to rock the boat. These make everything we do acquire far more expensive than it should be. The third point is that the present government's policies do not represent Britain's objective interests. Why are we involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, when it is abundantly plain that we can only do (and suffer) harm there? Why don't we resolve to mind our own business, provide for the defence of the UK and any truly vital overseas assets, and lay gunboat diplomacy to rest for good?
Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,
We will need Aircraft carriers, Trident submarines, Landing ships and Fighter aircraft to fight/deter the future wars against a nuclear power Iran and the soon to be Islamic Pakistan etc. We also need the helicopters and equipment for the Army, so the point of this article should have been that we should have bought the cheaper and better US options with no delays, and the amount this goverment wastes in all contracts based on UK/EU manufacture. Considering the MOD employs more administrators than the army has soldiers, savings directed to front line Army spending could be made on cutting back on half these ministry non-jobs.
George, London,
Sorry, Al from Midhurst' and others, what has the navy cointributed to the Iraq war - other than humiliation. And what it does contribute it can do with better targetted kit, ie better patrol boats with real firepower and helicopter support from relatively cheap carriers.
meantime our undermanned underequipped army slugs it out and our soldiers die in the process.
In case you have not noticed we have retreated in defeat from Iraq and are achieving nothing in Afghanistan because we do not have enough troops in theatre. There is a severe disaster waiting to happen.
Our procurement programmes and priorities are a shambles
TrevorH, OXON,
I am shocked at the ignorance and stupidity of some the comments here, many of them generated by petty and juvenile inter-service rivalry.
It is absolutely obvious to anybody with an atom of sense that the main burden of the article is true.
The army has been deprived of weaponry, first aid, radios, night vision goggles armour and transport. Only this week we saw inquests reporting that as fact. Whatever the benefits there are in buying expensive kit for the navy and airforce (and I don't doubt it's value in some future conflict) the simple fact is that the army is suffering here and now and being asked to fight two wars (and maybe a third if Kosovo kicks off again) on the cheap.
Cheap in <b>financial</b> terms at any rate. In terms of loss of life and injury it seems a little expensive to me. The poor bloody infantry are being expended quite casually and, as usual, the sponging sods in the government don't give a damn.
I'm disgusted by it all.
John Downes, Nottingham, England
The MOD is badly run. In 2005 the UK had the world's fifth largest defence budget. Like the health service a lot of the money seems to be wasted. The MOD website tells you nothing useful about the organization. I tried to find out the ratio of civil servants to soldiers and the size of the defence budget and failed. There are helpful bios on the top brass.
Britain's military budget is limited and so designing and buying bespoke systems is nuts. The MOD has no ability to develop and manage complex equipment programmes. It has trouble maintaining low-tech kit. Its usually more cost effective to buy off the shelf when the R&D has been incurred by someone else.
It's immoral for the UK to send troops with inadequate equipment to fight in placed like Iraq. There is a need to bring in someone from outside with manage defence, not a second-rate politico. We need Trident and the carriers. In 1932, before Hitler, the UK judged it faced no threats and spent little - things change.
mike scott, chichester, UK
The problem is not the programmes mentioned in this article, it is the management, or mismanagement of them. The new DE&S should be a great opportunity to get rid of the old shambles, and forge ahead with a more robust management that pays for its mistakes. Unfortunately, this would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
The waste in defence procurement is horrendous. Equipment is procured that doesn't even meet the MOD's own specification, then the contractor is paid millions to fix it to save the MOD embarrasment. Furthermore,much of the current wasted expediture is on outsourced prime contractors who only add to the overall bill by purchasing from the very same sub contractors who can more than adequately supply the MOD without the waste, and time delays. All of this to look good on the governments balance sheet? Sadly the result is in delays and inferior equipment going to the troops - if it gets there.
Jim, Norwich, UK
I understand the point that Simon Jenkins is making - but I disagree. Defence spending is the nation's insurance premium; we don't know what's round the corner so we must prepare for a range of eventualities - hence jets, aircraft carriers and the like.
However in what should have been a serious piece of journalisim, the resort to unchecked facts - more Admirals than ships - completely undermines the gravitas of this piece.
Such poor journalisim does not encourage us to regard the media as a serious contributor to the debate.
David Snelson, Oxted, Surrey
It sounds as if the UK should just give up the Falklands or other British subjects to the nearest Banana Republic. Without big ticket items such as the Darings, Carriers or Eurofighter there is no way you can defend the Islands or the UK for that matter and of course relying on the US is a total waste of time. How many US carriers did you see fighting the Argentinians in 1982?
It is pointless continuing fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan unless you can achieve something and this does not seem likely as no one actually seems to be able to state fixed military objectives.The only ""achievements" to date have been an increase in oil prices from$26 to $100 per barrel and a huge reduction in heroin prices owing to supplies going up as fast as the US deficit . Maybe the defence savings would be better effected by extracting UK forces from Bush's mess rather than cutting funds needed to defend Britains interests.
Let Bush look after the oil speculators and drug addicts
Jeff Larsen, Chch , NZ
Well, as the author says, U.K. is fighting in Iraq...not at sea. He should have taken this further: since UK is fighting there because USA says so - "51st state" quip from USA - it should not build any large surface ships, but just continue to scale down its navy - USA will take over the defense. I am not happy about this since our president keeps cutting pretty much everything while spending more and more on war...but I guess we could send a few ships to guard UK from - France? Germany? Russia? Ah yes, Al-Qaeda - that's the real reason we are buying billions of dollars worth of jets, missiles, ships, and putting weapons in space - Al Qaeda. We get the president we deserve, and sodoes UK. I wish UK voters could participate in our elections - their should be some give and take between rulers and ruled.
James Gardner, Hyde Park, Illinois, USA
Denise those comments are true; which supports my comment that there simply is not "an often fatal delay" . In responding to Matthew Cousins he should have read the Surgeon General's letter back in Jun last year:
Here he stated "I have not asked for dedicated helicopters, nor do I want them, as our military personnel have priority access to a range of helicopters 24 hours a day. It takes longer to helicopter people to hospital in Afghanistan than it did in Vietnam simply because the distances that we fly are much greater. We take specialist medical teams and equipment in a helicopter to the patient in the battlefield, rather than wait for them to get to hospital, and many lives are saved when they would have been lost in the "Vietnam era". It is these specialists teams that ensure there are not "often fatal delays" - there simply is no evidence to support the assertion of deaths through delays in arrival at a field hospital.
Al, Midhurst, UK
Only last week I was reading that more soldiers were surviving by reason of the quality of the medical treatment in field hospitals, and that they have more of a chance than someone being run over outside Selly Oak. Just what is the truth?
Denise, Colchester,
There is one trueism of modern warfare and that is you fight with what you have. New weapons and capabilities take years to come on line so if you have failed to predict and plan 10-15 years previously you won't have the capabilities you need.
If we fail to buy these carriers in 10 years time the UK will have no carrier capability at all as the current 3 wear out. We could try buying a cheaper system but history tends to indicate that when you try to do that you often end up paying the same price for something less capable that you then have to spend money on upgrading to get back to the capability that you wanted in the first place!
7 years ago it looked like the activity around Iraq would be occasional bombings, and patroling the no-fly zone till Saddam died of old age. 20 years ago Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviets and the people we are currently fighting were on our side. Alliances can be made and broken in days, building military capability takes years.
Dan Robertson, Derby,
I think the whole business of defence needs rethinking. It is not all that long since Churchill talked about the British Empire lasting a thousand years. How about repeating that today. Times have changed, but what hasn t much changed is the British attitude to military matters. It has been frequently pointed out that we don t know what may be the future threats. I disagree. We do know. They are the Anglo American military aspirations and ambitions. Thus in order to meet future threats the armed forces need to be limited to provide an air and sea defensive capability and a small, well equipped army that can be used in support of UN type operations or surviving British possessions. The attitude should be that we need a good defensive capability but we do not need military forces that will encourage certain parties to look for means to exploit them.
Henry Percy, London, UK
This article looks to the past as much as the commanders and politicians it criticises.
Occupations no longer work due to insurgencies and effective communications - the 'globalisation of terrorism'.
We need a 21st century military capability - aircraft, ships, missiles and special forces able to strike anywhere in the world at short notice.
To put our readiness in context, a letter (in the Times no less) recalled the experience of the British army in 1939 in North Africa. They were given blanks at the start of WW2 and told to wait for live rounds to arrive - and in the meantime, hope the Italians didn't declare war and invade.
Ben, York,
But if our "enemies" in Afghanistan and Iraq pose no military threat to us, then it doesn't much matter whether we win ior lose.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the lives of a few no-account squaddies are of any significance, compared to our politicians' need to look important and "sit at the top table". Are you?
Mike Stone, Peterborough, UK
I fail to understand some of Al's (from Midhurst) criticism. "Often fatal delay" refers to the previous two sentences:
"... British troops were taking longer to get to a field hospital than it took the Americans in Vietnam. Two hours’ delay in Iraq has become seven hours in Helmand."
If you need life-saving treatment then a seven-hour delay is a bit of a bummer.
The Eurofighters program should have been cancelled many years ago and instead replaced with a large helicopter program.
Matthew Cousins, Sutton, UK
The problem is we are fighting a prolonged war, not on our door step, a war that is nothing to do with the British people.
There is only one cut is bring all our troops home, they finished their job when Sadam Hussien was captured.
Leave the Arabs to sort themselves out, they will never thank us for what the US and the British have done.
The troops need to recharge their energy and equipment and no more wars we cannot afford them.
Peter, Hastings, UK
Dear Sirs,
Watching the excelent Ross Kemp in Afganistan several things became blindingly obvious.
1) Our troops have snowcats masquarading as apc's and they are incapable of surviving even a small explosion without loss of life. This is dire.
2) They are forced to rely on 50 cals and mortars for fire support when they should have either field pieces or howitzer support *at all times*
3) The standard tactic of advance, engage, hold and wait for air support is costly in terms of the lives of our troops.
Our guys need to be able to engage the enemy hard and effectively on every encounter. It requires a substancial explosive or thermobaric charge to destroy the enemy in one of the compounds they use. They should have these available.
We are fighting a war - and should remember that.
Yours
Mr H
Mr H, Bristol,
The dynamics of wealth and power transfer today makes one wonder if the military in democracies have any clue of what sustains our national security. Yes, they can procure the latest in baroque technologies and can easily wreck a victim's social and physical infrastructure; but, can they influence the shift of wealth and power away from their own nations.
I fear not.
The bytes and weaves of information along with the flows of money and loyalities have left the nests and fortresses our militaries have sworn to protect. It has all gone to safer havens of Mammon- those not understood by a lesser god named Clausewitz.
A better use of funding may be to find the phalanx of spies or create the army of defenders who understand the codes of hiding assets, the algorithms of greed and traffic and the dementia of the terrorist. There is where to invest so our security will be regained.
Bill Keller, BASKING RIDGE, USA/New Jersey
I would like to know if Mr Jenkins is aware that nearly every major and some smaller nations around the world are currently heavily investing in manufacturing large aircraft carriers. Surely all of these states including Russia, India, Italy and China know a bit more than Mr Jenkins more so when it comes to the term "Amphibious warfare" remember that? the Falklands? Al Faw?
Peter Cooper, Portsmouth,
On the other hand ..... an Obama presidency will see interventionism come to a shuddering halt. Withdrawal from Afghanistan would be only a matter of time.
British adventurism would suddenly fall out of fashion, and might become unacceptable to "the world community" (US).
A (slightly stronger) navy and airforce, and an army built for peace-keeping (rather than 20th century infantry warfare), might then be seen as sensible priorities.
John Maynard, Cranbrook, UK
I believe that the "British people" expect our governments to maintain the armed forces at a higher level than would normally be expected for a faded imperial power. We have one of the largest economies in the world and we should be expected to go to war accordingly.
Our history would also suggest that the day we de-couple the army from the navy and air force is the day we fail miserably. Dunkirk was a failure of government to have enough Spitfires and Hurricanes to defend our army in France, D-Day was as much about complete control of the skies over France as it was an invasion by the army. And of course it doesn't take a genius to work out how the army got there.
Modern warfare is not Dunkirk or D-Day but we expect our governments to make sure all branches of the armed forces are adequately armed. We also expect to pay for the privilege; as well as schools and the National Health service. So we need the Typhoons and the carriers as well as rifles that don't jam in the desert.
David, Dubai, UAE
I recall someone once said that armies always plan for the previous war
C Rance , Reading ,
This is an article of many parts, at times ill-infomed, that appears to be aimed at discrediting all but the Army.
He would quite correct to criticize the Government for failing to fund the current conflicts - and the majority of the burden for these conflicts has be born by Land Forces; but by no means all of it. Royal Marines have provided more than their fair share of front-line troops: a Service mandated through guidelines to spend more time away from home than their army peers; The Royal Navy and RAF have provided all the helicopter lift and fixed wing strike capability. But to suggest that we should fund the current fight at the expense of our strategic direction lets the Government off the hook. The carriers and deterrent are strategic assets that should not be sacrificed to support either conflict.
I am confused about the comment "often fatal delay" no such level of frequency or certainty was mentioned in the article and statistics since do not bear out his assertion
Al, Midhurst, UK
This is a grossly misinformed view, and it is telling that you quote the redoubtable Lewis Page who demonstrates equally poor judgement.
The 1998 SDR was, surprise surprise, a very thorough document that very adequately addressed the strategic needs of this country in the early part of the coming century.
The problem lay in the fact that it was never financed. The provision of external security is the FIRST duty of the state, and yet this Gov't sees fit to allocate only ~6.0% of total annual spending to the Armed Forces, or an equivalent of 2.2% of GDP if you prefer.
To put this in perspective, we spent over 5.0% of GDP at the height of the Cold War, and over 4.0% at the end of the Cold War. Rightly it was decided that there should be a post Cold War peace dividend which would see Britain's Defence spending reduced to a PEACETIME minimum of 2.5% of GDP.
And yet here we are, in what can only be considered wartime conditions and spending only 2.2% of GDP on Defence!
UKNDA - 3.0% of GDP
Matthias Gris, London,
I think that something needs clarifying to the general public, and certainly to this reporter. The Army does not do battlefield support helicopter work for troops. There focus has and always will be the armed attack helicopter and recce work. In the past that has been the Lynx, and is now taken on mainly by the Apache. In the mean time the RAF and the Royal Navy supply the battlefield mobility to the soldiers on the ground. The RAF has committed the Chinook to Afghanistan and the Merlin to Iraq. The Royal Navy have committed the Seaking to both theatres in recent times. Therefore defence spending should definitely still encompass all 3 services as helicopters come under a tri-service mandate. I get the feeling that this has been an ill-informed and poorly researched article. He mentions a Sikorsky helicopter. Which one? He seems unaware that Sikorsky is a company and not an aircraft type! It worries me when a paper has articles on defence that they failto research.
Richard Fox, Andover,
We have an MOD with the same financial discipline of the NHS and a government which commits them to effectively going to war in 2 Countries without materially raising spending. It has difficulty increasing spending because politically it can only use stealth means. It cannot use the excuse of national security to raise spending because the wars are stealth as well.
They should either fund and manage the armed forces spending to the level which is necessary or bring our troops back home. Anything else is criminal.
Neill, Maidstone, UK
Without aircraft, ships and submarines to protect them, they are just targets for enemy aircraft, ships and submarines.
Having an effective capability involving aircraft, ships and subs means maintaining that capability for the day it will be needed, not pretending it won't be.
Prior to the Falklands we were going to lose the carriers - and the ships sent there were sorely under equipped as in evidenced by the overloading of subsequent ships with additional air defences eg Phalanx.
James, Ilford, Essex
Every modern war is fought by the army - even the Falklands!! Lord knows how they would have got there were it not for the navy, protected by Sea Harriers!! Shut up Simon - a capability once lost is gone for decades and we don't know what threats are around the corner. These days the lesson is that new fighters and warships take decades to design, deliver and operate effectively. Infantry can still be trained up in a matter of months to fight the Taliban, supported by air power! Anyone who has seen foreign militaries with flashy new equipment that they don't know how to operate properly can see why certain capabilities are retained in the UK even when in the short term our army are fighting squalid little outpost wars. The Admirals and Generals know full well why they need to support each other publicly - the real reason Britain's armed forces are suffering is because Labour have over committed the forces to overseas adventures that DO NOT directly threaten the homeland!
M Graham, Auckland, New Zealand
this is just ignorance, anyone with knowledge of recent history would know that. You call aircraft carrier and nuclear submarines unecassary and useless, but these ships were vitally important in the Falklands conflict. If they hadn't been there, the argies would have run rings around the task force, the army never would have made it to land. Typhoon is different, it is technically necessary, but has simply become a total procurement mess.
The reason our soldiers are not getting the equipment we need, is not the navy or the air force, its the government, which insists on reducing our defense budget while engaged in to high intensity wars.
oliver, new canaan, ct
Its almost as bad as Australia being surrounded to the north by huge asian armies and no guns in the Defence cupboard for a citizens home guard defence force. Brits would be safer staying in Britain.
G.Gibson, Sydney, Australia
The article makes a trenchant point, give the forces the tools they need.
The country must decide on what armed forces it needs for i) its OWN security both tactical and strategic ; ii) the forces required above this to support our allies; and iii) for overseas humanitarian interventions.
And then budget accordingly and increase if necessary.
Big ticket items are essential but making sure the "smaller" everyday items (armoured vehicles, helicopters, munitions) that the soldier, sailor or airman needs are there is a paramount necessity as well as is the capacity to get, ie buy, more as soon as is required. If we commit to put lives in danger then no cost is too high. The sight of petty bureaucrats and peace loving MPs and PMs in Whitehall in custom-designed stress-reducing armchairs arguing over pennies is sickening - I would sit on a stool if it helped buy some body armour or needed munitions.
Yet Blair and Brown do not cavil at committing soldiers for a photo op.
John, Canberra, Australia
Simon Jenkins needs to be aware that all 3 British Armed Forces are fighting in Afghanistan, not just the Army. In fact, not so long ago, there were more Navy personnel in Afghanistan than Army personnel.
It is not just about money and equipment, it is about strategy and tactics. Those things can be fixed, together with a more fervent desire in the MOD to do what is necessary for success rather doiing everything they can to avoid failure. It should be the main focus of Defence activity, not some sideshow or hobby that MOD treats as something it does in its spare time.
We were not whingeing about equipment deficiencies at Agincourt - or indeed Waterloo - we just got on with it. Stop making excuses for poor generalship and lacklustre, timid leadership!
John Price, Stoke, UK
The UK is not alone. The US Marines wanted their own shiny toy, the tilt rotor Osprey V 22. It is made in 45 states, so far has cost a total US$15 Bn - US$100Mn each.
The first ones were deployed to Iraq in November.
They don't have any defensive armament. At all.
BAE are testing a single V22 in the US with remote controlled GAU-2B 7.62 mm mini-gun which is a slightly fancier version (with reduced ammunition supply) than the one that was ineffective in Vietnam on the Bell HueyBell UH-1 and was outgunned by the Russian 12.7mm Degtyarev-Shpagin DSh KM and then the 14.5 mm KPV-14.5 which was mounted on bicycle wheels.
There is no monopoly on military stupidity.
Ed Stroudley, Larnaca, Cyprus
The only reason Britain has any major say in world affairs is because we have trident, the French knew that nuclear arms were vital to their world position also and quick to develop them. In the Fauklands we needed all the ships and our carrier, submarines and aircraft as much as our army. The fact is that we need to spend more or we will lose our military capability. We also need to keep a competitive, advanced weapons building industry in the UK, it is one of the few industries we have left and if we lose that engineering expertise then the UK is in trouble.
As Nelson said `any country that is careless of it`s own army better get used to living under someone else`s`.
kevin, aylesbury,
Aircraft carriers will not be cancelled because they are due to be built in Gordon Brown's constituency of Rosyth. Simple really
J Kenny, Glasgow,
'Starship Troopers' by Robert Heinlein (the definitive eulogy of the Poor Bloody Infantry) should be a compulsory text in all UK officer training establishments - as I have heard that it is in America.
Thomas Goodey, Cuxton-upon-Medway, UK
With out the force projection which aircraft carriers give us, we will not be able to fight or carry influence in many parts of the world. Has Simon Jenkins forgotten about the Falklands War already?
Paul Galley, Manchester, UK
The Army has managed to get itself stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan and they were not exactly dragged kicking and screaming to go there either!
The MOD has to think about the future as well as the present - who knows what equipment we may need in the future? You cannot grow submarines and aircraft carriers overnight. Clearly, Simon Jenkins does not know what the future will bring and I think that he has been got at by Sir Mike Jackson who I hope wins the Booker Prize (for fiction that is) for his autobiography. It - as well as this article - reflects the sort of half-truths, poor logic and downright dishonesty that are currently distorting the debate about Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not just about resources, it is about poor strategy - yes, the Iron Duke should weep, but so would Nelson!
Aubrey Waters, Winchester, UK
This point of view is blatantly a propaganda piece for the Army and is full of tendentious statements. I give one example - the Falklands was won by the Army! Do me a favour - how did the soldiers manage to make their way 8000 miles into the South Atlantic and get themselves landed on a hostile shore without a single casualty in the landing phase? Oh and by the way the Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy and I think that maybe 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines had more than a little to do with the victory - even though the Army - in its usual fashion and with the help of Max Hastings tried to grab the headlines.
Let us also remember that the Army's future survival depends on the UK continuing to be dragged into conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. Should we really have such a large standing Army in peace-time? That is the question that should be asked. In an era of globalization, it will be the assets that can influence the sea and air ways of the world that will count.
Humphrey Fanning, Oxford, UK