2010 Articles

Months of speculation from defence experts, former members of the Armed Forces, MPs and most prominently the media, finally came to an end today when David Cameron revealed the conclusions and actions which will be made as a result of the SDSR – the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

While some detail remains unclear or uncomfirmed, the headline aviation related announcements are as follows:

• Reduce the RAF by around 5000 personnel to about 33,000 by 2015, and with an assumption, for now, of a requirement of about 31,500 by 2020.

• Withdraw the C-130 Hercules transport fleet ten years earlier than planned (2022) and transition to the more capable and larger A400M.

• Withdraw the Sentinel surveillance aircraft once it is no longer required to support operations in Afghanistan.

• Rationalise the RAF estate.

• Retain the Tornado GR.4, albeit with a reduced fleet, which will continue to operate in Afghanistan.

• Remove Harrier from service in 2011 in the transition to a future fast jet force of Typhoon and JSF. This will mean a gap for carrier fast jet operations. JSF, like Harrier, will be operated jointly by RAF and Royal Navy pilots.

• Not bring into service the Nimrod MRA4.

• Withdraw VC10 (with a streamlining of role to that of air-to-air refuelling only in the interim) and the three variants of Tristar aircraft from 2013 (two years ahead of schedule) and transition towards the more capable A330 future strategic transport and tanker aircraft.

• Decommission HMS Ark Royal immediately.

• Plan for carrier-strike capability based around a single new operational carrier with the second planned to be kept at extended readiness. The carrier will embark Joint Strike Fighters (the CATOBAR enabled F-35C variant) and helicopters.

For full details, including news on Puma, RC-135 Rivet Joint and Wildcat, please refer to The Strategic Defence and Security Review pdf document

With the Ministry of Defence facing a £38 billion black hole in its budget, the SDSR was conducted alongside the new Government’s overall spending review, one which it is expected will result in significant cuts to public spending in an effort to reduce the UK’s overall budget deficit. This of course was one of the stated aims of the Conservative Party as it campaigned for power during the 2010 General Election, if not the Liberal Democrats with which it would eventually form a coalition government.

The SDSR was said to be ‘policy-based’ and ‘resource-aware’, with a far broader remit than previous such reviews, including that conducted most recently (in 1998); an SDR which examined only the work of the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces.

Led by the Cabinet Office but overseen by the National Security Council, in addition to reviewing the Armed Forces directly, the SDSR also aimed to guide the work of all departments concerned with security. These included the likes of the diplomatic network, intelligence agencies, the Home Office (counter-terrorism) and the UK's support for international development which also contributes to international security and stability.

The Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, said of the SDSR:

"The frontline has been protected because Afghanistan is the Government's top priority. Tough decisions are required to reconfigure our Armed Forces to confront future threats whilst we also tackle the £38bn deficit that has accumulated in the 12 years since the last Defence Review. The MOD must become as effective and as efficient as possible."

That then is the broad backdrop to the biggest review of the MOD and Armed Forces ever conducted, at a time when UK forces remain engaged in high tempo operations in support of the ISAF effort in Afghanistan while facing up to the less tangible threat of terrorist attack at home and ongoing defence of British sovereignty.

Dr Peter Gray is a retired Air Commodore whose early flying career was as a navigator on air defence duties in the F-4 Phantom and he later commanded 101 Squadron flying the VC10. Staff appointments included three years in the Cabinet Office, then Strategic Planning in the MOD and as Director of Defence Studies for the RAF, with his final job as Director of the Defence Leadership and Management Centre within the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. He joined the University of Birmingham in 2008.

“I strongly believe that this SDSR was long overdue and feel there is great merit in looking at the system utilised in the USA and that we should hold quadrennial defence reviews. There is a great mismatch between our planning assumptions, the acquisition of resources and government policy.”

It is interesting therefore to note that yesterday’s New National Security Strategy report states the following “…we will report annually to Parliament on the National Security Strategy, and we will require a new Strategic Defence and Security Review every five years,” so it seems that Dr Gray’s is not alone in sharing this view.

“This has really been a disaster waiting to happen for 15 years,” he adds. “The Treasury has known that we have a problem, the MOD has known, the Joint Service Chiefs have known and the Defence Select Committee has known. If they’d worked earlier to pull the budget back in to line they could have done so without implementing such major cuts.”

Urgent Operational Requirements made since 9/11 have also exacerbated the situation in Peter’s mind. “While many of these have undoubtedly saved lives, they have been signed-off and paid for relentlessly over the past few years and this really hasn’t helped in a financial sense.

“My biggest concerns however are twofold. Firstly I’ve yet to see a shred of evidence that the SDSR has been policy led. To coin a well worn phrase, the normal process is sometimes called ‘salami slicing’, but doing it with a chainsaw is what this process seems to be all about, and the Prime Minister’s apparent intervention to limit the cuts could really have been scripted beforehand.

“Secondly, how much consideration has been made in to the impact on the British defence industry? Have we really taken proper steps to examine what we want this to look like, what it should be capable of and how much we want it to contribute? The problem here is that cuts will have a huge impact on defence based SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises). Some will no doubt go to the wall as a result and we’ll never get them back so our defence industry will be unable to grow.”

As mentioned earlier, speculation has been rife for months with the majority of column inches and debate surrounding Trident, our independent nuclear deterrent, the completion (or otherwise) of two new aircraft carriers, alleged battles between Liam Fox for the MOD and George Osborne’s Treasury and the seemingly all too predictable inter-Service rivalries which apparently always result from discussions surrounding cuts to defence. Nimrod MRA4, the Harrier, Tornado GR.4, base closures, the Red Arrows, BBMF, Typhoon Tranche 3, procurement of helicopters; the truth is that there is little which hasn’t been debated over the past months and few sections of the RAF have found themselves immune to speculation.

"Everyone fights for resources when there is a spending review in Whitehall of any kind, that’s the first thing to remember. In my experience what will actually have been taking place is a healthy discussion between the Services but yes, the Treasury loses friends and deals are done. But it is far from healthy to read about these discussions in the media via leaked documents and the constant baying of the retired seniors’ brigade as this adds to the media fire with the sense that they are lobbying for one service or another.

“If you look back over the past few months there has actually been little or no official announcement so we have not seen the real discussion in the media, just the flotsam and jetsam.”

And what of the specifics and the concerns already expressed by many that the UK has been left vulnerable in terms of defence and its ability to respond to modern day threats?

“Clearly we must all hope that these have been properly examined and I for one would certainly like to think so. It’s a question of looking ahead and deciding what capability you want to have in the future and for that reason I believe the decision to do away with the Harrier for example is the right one.

"There is little point in holding on to residual capability so maintaining the Tornado GR.4 force (currently deployed in Afghanistan) is the correct move. JSF (The F-35 / Joint Strike Fighter) will be coming on-line and while the two aircraft carriers may not be able to fulfil the role for which they are intended for a number of years I see this as being a bigger issue for the media rather than a substantive issue in terms of defence. Personally I remain unconvinced as to the need for carriers but there are arguments for and against this.”

Indeed, Dr Gray is not even convinced that there will be any great public debate surrounding the cuts, feeling that the real battleground will be a solely political one unless they result in a negative impact, such as increased casualties, on the men and women serving in Afghanistan, which he doesn’t fundamentally believe they will.

2010-10-25 - Mike Maskrey
Fantastic article! It beggars belief that Cameron's Government are cutting back on our much needed Air Force when the threat from terrorism remains higher than ever. Our enemies must see these cuts and read with a smile! If we ever have to call on the RAF in the future for defence duties around the UK, God help us!!