Why you should be skeptical of the skeptics

[Battlefront.com]

The truth of the matter is most nations could scale down to a light infantry force with, at most, a medium unit or two. In reality it is almost like that anyway, and rapidly heading that way.

The Belgian Army will be down to a paltry 20,000 soldiers in a few years according to their latest downsizing program. 20k soldiers in a nation of 10 million. That means they can field a combat force of only a few companies at a time. They have some transport capability, but not much. This means that Belgium is stuck as a peace keeping nation force only. Well, they could still invade small island countries like Grenada

When you look at the conflicts to come, some would argue, large conventional forces aren't needed. If a single country is attacked by one of the few large military powers they will be defeated militarily. Almost for sure. But defeat of an armed force and a regime is fairly easy. Solving whatever problem caused the war in the first place is much tougher. Probably involves long term military occupation and a whole lot of local good will. So what's the point of being armed to the teeth with expensive weapons if you know your nation's role is likely going to be peace keeping anyway?

BTW, there are many military experts that would argue the large industrialized nations are the least well equipped to fight the wars of the future. They are best equipped to fight each other and not their potential advesaries. And what good is a military force which costs heaps of money each year when it can't do squat to quell massive internal turmoil caused by under funded and misdirected social policies? What good is an expensive armed force if it is misused and mishandled by its political masters?

Anyway... just saying that part of me wonders why I find all of this military stuff so interesting when it appears to be so utterly useless at solving real problems that face the world.

Steve

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

When you look at the conflicts to come, some would argue, large conventional forces aren't needed.

Someone needs to update China and India on this.

[Battlefront.com]

Just to give you an idea of Stryker refurb costs vs. the Abrams:

General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI received a $69.1 million modification to a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for "reset" of 265 M1126 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles, whose performance in Iraq was profiled recently by DID. This was a sole source contract initiated on June 30, 2005 by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Warren, MI issued the contract (DAAE07-02-C-B001).

Through this contract General Dynamics will service, repair and modify 265 Stryker vehicles returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom, restoring them to a pre-combat, like-new condition. These vehicles have been in service in Iraq since October 2003, supporting two 3,900-soldier Stryker Brigade Combat Team rotations and accumulating over 6 million miles. The vehicles maintained an operational readiness rate above 95% throughout their deployment in Iraq. This contracted reset work is slated to begin in mid-November at General Dynamics Canada in London, Ontario (75%), Fort Lewis, WA (19%), and Sterling Heights, MI (6%), and is expected to be complete by Sept. 30, 2006.

This comes out to about $260,000 per vehicle in combat service for 2 solid years. The refurb cost for a peacetime M1A1 Abrams is $1,000,000 each. A Bradley Again, the Stryker is not designed to be a replacement for the Abrams, so this is a bit of an apples to organges comparison. It does, however, illustrate how expensive heavy armor is compared to medium armor.

In other news, $1.14 Billion is being spent on upgrading and refurbishing Bradleys. The part that I could compare against the Stryker and Abrams is, unfortunately, not a "fixed fee" service but rather "blocks" of labor only. Materials is extra on top of that, so a direct comparison is impossible. It does mean that the cost of this program is going to be a lot more than $1.14 Billion.

In still other news, $101.7 Million is going towards upgrading and refurbishing a significant part of the M113 fleet still in service. Again, like the Bradley contract it is not possible to do a 1:1 comparison.

So again... when you hear Stryker critics complaining about how expensive the base vehicles are, note that it is a bit of a strawman since none of these systems are cheap. One thing that is generally true, though, is that the heavier the vehicle is the more expensive it is to build and maintain. Being tracked only makes it worse.

Steve

[ November 08, 2005, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Someone needs to update China and India on this.

And a whole bunch of other nations too China's massive spending program on its military is stupid since pretty much any scenario they think they need it for would most certainly mean the destruction of the Chinese state as it is known today. When your control of the masses relies upon improvements in living standards (or a facade of improvement), and that improvement depends almost exclusively on foreign customers, it doesn't take a genius to realize that if the customers stop placing orders the whole house of cards comes down. A disruption in oil would have the same effect. So the reality is the Chinese military is useless except for assured self destruction.

India is not all that different. Who are they going to go to war with? Pakistan. What would happen if a large scale conventional war was started by India against Pakistan? Nukes would almost certainly be used. There can be no winner in that scenario.

I see large, conventional, high tech forces as being akin to nuclear weapons. Lots and lots of money spent on something that has little practical value. And if you think I'm daft, check out the logic behind the US military's Transformation and the recent conversion of artillery, tank, and other "Cold War" type formations into infantry units.

Steve

[ November 08, 2005, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

China's massive spending program on its military is stupid since pretty much any scenario they think they need it for would most certainly mean the destruction of the Chinese state as it is known today.

That's only true if they think you need your military for a military purpose. China may, and probably does, believe they need it for diplomatic, economic, and social reasons, to name a few.

[Edited because I'm a trigger happy idiot]

[Peter Cairns]

At the moment chinas spending is put at about $50bn that's the same as the UK's, Given it's size and the fact that it's got 20 times the population that's hardly excessive.

however if you take it that the UK spends about 45% on it's 200,000+ personnel, Thats about about $50,000 a head on wages. Now if the Uk like america has wage levels around 20 times that of China, then thae same spending would let them finance, 4m personnel, which they more or less do when you look at support.

In reality the vast bulk of the chinese army is for internal purposes only and the modern bit that people are worried about in terms of power projection is probably equivelent to Britain and France.

What that means is that we have a sort of status quo by choice. China has a spending level which is economically sustainable and allowing them a steppped modernisation of mainly obsolete forces ( some would argue with general economic growth 8-10%, it's defence spending in real terms is static or falling).

All lot of the high tech stuff it has bought, it's got dirt cheap from a desperate Russia with a huge amount of technology transfer that has probably alowed it to advance it's indigenious designs twenty years for a fraction of what it would have cost to develope it independantly.

Just look at the way the links with ex-soviet design houses has effected designs for things like the L-15 and compare it with the cost abd delays in the indian LCA programme.

China has a force structure that means it can't really threaten or invade it's main regional rivals ( S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan ), but on the other hand, no one even the US could effectively invade them. thats a pretty stable situation and useful for china, it lets it flex it's muscles and act big at the minimum expense.

In the long term it might even end up doing to Taiwan what we did to the Soviet Union, in order to meet the percieved threat of Chinese military power Taiwan would need to devote a larger and larger share of it's wealth to defecne allowing China to forge ahead even further economically.

I am not a fan of china, but I've often thought they had the best nuclear detterent of them all in that, the successfully deterred both the US and the USSr for decades witha nuclear force that was far smaller and more affordable than either of their rivals.

Final point on China. I think we are generallly underestimating it as an arms exporter. We tend to judge arms sales on value not volume, that means that 40 F-15K's at $40m each, counts for a lot more than 100 J-7's at $5m each.

But it's like VCR's or DVD players. When Chinas weren't very good at not that much cheaper we didn't import a lot, now that they are damned good and really cheap, we import far more. The actually value of the goods hasn't gone up that much say 40%, but in numbers it might have tripled.

An what has happened to those domestic companies who used to make VCR's and VD Players. The chinese are doing great business in small arms at the moment and are moving up in terme of technical proficency and weapon size. As they make inroads in export markets on price and quality then the market for Western alternatives shrinks for two reasons.

One, as people go for Chinese rather than more capable Russian stuff ( again J-7 not Mig 29) to meet their needs the arguement for the likes of the F-22 and F-35 weakens, so orders for these fall, meaning that production runs are cut and unit cost rises, thus making them less competative.

Secondly as things like the L-15 close the gap technically on the likes of S. Koreas new T-50 but are a third cheaper, they start to compete head to head and actually squeeze us out.

If anyone has figures I'd be interested to see them, but I suspect that China may not be in the top five for sales, but might already be in the top three for volume.

In effect they are starting to do the same for arms as they did for computers and electrical goods. The ones to watch over the rest of the decade will be trainers, light attcak aircraft and increasing communications and EW systems.

Peter.

[Peter Cairns]

flamingknives

They did do well, both the Paras and the Marines, just as generally the US did very well in Somalia,

What we didn't have in SL was a BHD, where we found that a Land rover was as vulnerable as a Humvee when it came up against RPG's.

The fact that their were no major incidents where a Land Rover with a 7.62mm GPMG was up against a Land Cruiser with a twin 23mm ZSU, shouldn't blind you to the fact that it's no match for it.

The proliferation of cheap smll arms and anti tank weapons in the third worls means that the type of forces that were fine for fighting the IRA ( and the stuff in SL, wasn't even that heavy), leaves you to vulneralbe. That's why I think deployable medium wait forces like Stryker are much more the way to go.

What I am saying is that it should be equipped or designed to match or better what we can expect to meet, ( that includes T-55 v Javelin), rather than the "we'll we got by with landrovers in SL so they'll do".

Lars

Why do all the other nations Scotlands size have armies, t persue their foreign policy objectives and defend their country. Admitting that like Belguim or Denmark we can't do everything isn't at all the same as saying we can do nothing.

You could make the same arguement for Canada ( if this doesn't wake Dorosh up nothing will). With an ally like the US on it's door step why not just integrate with that,

The answers is because what the US wants and what Canada wants aren't always the same, and as an independant country Canada in tose situations wants to be able to go it's own way, after all they didn't go to Iraq.

Your arguement seems to be unless you can replicate the abilities of bigger nations and do everything, their is no point in having an army.

If you look at UN operations , you'll see troops from around the world deployed mostly from nations that hired or needed help to get their. In that respect what I am suggesting isn't unusual, in fact it's more the norm.

As to your kit arguement that seems way off line. try looking at the costs and overruns of current and recent UK defence programmes and compare them to the costs and effectiveness of buying off the shelf.

For me the Classic was the Tornado, it was suppose d to be the MRCA, ( Multi Role Combat Aircraft) and it ended up as too seperate planes, neither much good, late, and over budget. It was an F-15 built by committee and neither as good a fighter or strike aircraft. The eurofighter is little better, and as for battlefield communications thats been an embarassment for decades.

If I had a choice I'd buy off the shelf rather than try to develop our own, and besides the one thing I am sure of is that if we ever get independence ( and it's a big if i'll admit), every major arms producer in the world will be at our door on day one with their catalogues,

peter.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

As to your kit arguement that seems way off line. try looking at the costs and overruns of current and recent UK defence programmes and compare them to the costs and effectiveness of buying off the shelf.

Recent UK programmes such as, for example, Apache (US helo), Javelin (US missile), Minimi (Belgian LMG), or Bowman (US radios and Canadian BMS)?

What alternatives do you suggest that are more "off-the-shelf"?

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

For me the Classic was the Tornado, it was suppose d to be the MRCA, ( Multi Role Combat Aircraft) and it ended up as too seperate planes, neither much good, late, and over budget.

"Neither much good"? Please name a Western (or indeed Eastern) aircraft that matches it capabilities in low-level deep penetration or long-range interception.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

It was an F-15 built by committee

Nope. F-15 was designed as an air-superiority fighter. Tornado was not. You might as well criticize the Buccaneer or the Tu-28 for their inability to dogfight.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[snips] and as for battlefield communications thats been an embarassment for decades.

Given the amazingly large number of king-size pig's breakfasts the UK defence procurement people have made over the past decade or three, picking on Tornado and Clansman/Ptarmigan is an astonishingly poor choice of examples.

All the best,

John.

[Peter Cairns]

John,

The recent programmes you mention prove my point, the question I was answering was " Won't costs rise for a small nation". my arguement was "No it's when you develop your own to meet a narrow national need, that's when costs rise".

The recent examples you give are all ones where the UK has gone off the shelf and made good choices.

The home grown projects, Like Nimrod, (not to mention the disaster of Nimrod AWACs), Astute (although a lot of that is US tech), Typhoon and Phoenix, have been a mess.

the reason I find Javelin, Stryker or similiar attractive is exactly because it meets our needs at a good price and offers a good low risk solution.

The UK programmes you quote are examples where the UK has done what I think Scotland should do.

The Tornado comes in two distinct versions, the ADV variant was supposed to meet the UK's air defence needs, and did so, But if we had bought and equivelent number of F-15's we would have got a better plane for lower cost.

Over the North Sea as an Interceptor the F-15 would easily have matched the Tornado. Over Germany in an active air superiority battle the F-15's performance makes the Tornado look like a Joke.

So with to distinct types of air battle to try to cover, the UK bought a plane that was only decent at one, that's a bad choice.

As for deep low level strike, so what.

The RAF talked about it's excellent gust response and low level stability, thats code for it's fine in a straight line but turns like a brick, so stay as low as you can because if anything finds you your dead meet.

The GR1 in the gulf showed that what the RAF had committed to was a plane that was good at a type of mission that everyone else had abandoned.

What the US was going with PGM's we were trying to do by flying through flak. When we did go to medium altitude ( which was far more effective) we needed Buccaneers to buddy along to designate targets.

When the MRCA project was established the RAF had a bad case of finest hour syndrome.

It wanted a plane that could be the "B of B" spitfire and the Dam Busters Lancaster all in one. What it ended up with was a fighter that was no Spitfire, and a Bomber that was no Lancaster. nether were world class or war winners.

As a procurement project it was a mess, it never met it's objectives, was late and over budget, we only sold them to the saudi's because the US put limits on F-15 sales and they got a huge backhander from Thatchers boy.....

As to the list of King-sized Pigs breakfasts, I agree the MOD couldn't order a Pizza without paying too much to have cold lasange delivered to the wrong address....

To be honest I think we generally agree. If there is a good "Off he Shelf" system out there that meets your needs at a price you can afford, then buy it.

Distorting your procurement to bolster, or sustain defence jobs when it leads to poor kit, or other kit being delayed, abandoned or bought in too few numbers, is false economy.

Peter.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Distorting your procurement to bolster, or sustain defence jobs when it leads to poor kit, or other kit being delayed, abandoned or bought in too few numbers, is false economy.

Well then, it looks like the Scots will be the first nation to not fall prey to the temptation.

Btw, I look forward with anticipation to the Welsh Army.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

flamingknives

They did do well, both the Paras and the Marines, just as generally the US did very well in Somalia,

What we didn't have in SL was a BHD, where we found that a Land rover was as vulnerable as a Humvee when it came up against RPG's.

The fact that their were no major incidents where a Land Rover with a 7.62mm GPMG was up against a Land Cruiser with a twin 23mm ZSU, shouldn't blind you to the fact that it's no match for it.

The proliferation of cheap smll arms and anti tank weapons in the third worls means that the type of forces that were fine for fighting the IRA ( and the stuff in SL, wasn't even that heavy), leaves you to vulneralbe. That's why I think deployable medium wait forces like Stryker are much more the way to go.

What I am saying is that it should be equipped or designed to match or better what we can expect to meet, ( that includes T-55 v Javelin), rather than the "we'll we got by with landrovers in SL so they'll do".

If you insist on using softskins like light tanks, you're going to get a nasty surprise. There are precious few LAVs that can take fire from a 23mm either

The RM and Parachute regiment are light infantry - they do not have organic armour so the lack of presence on a RM or Para deployment doesn't actually mean anything more than it was not deemed necessary. Where the requirement exists, Recce regiments equipped with light armour could have been dispatched.

But they weren't. Because they weren't needed.

The MoD does see the need for a more easily deployable force. It's called FRES. Being locally developed means that it can take advantage of locally developed technology, such as insensitive munitions, advanced ammunitions and electric armour.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[snips]

The home grown projects, Like Nimrod, (not to mention the disaster of Nimrod AWACs), Astute (although a lot of that is US tech), Typhoon and Phoenix, have been a mess.

There is no simple correlation between project success and buying off the shelf, no matter what the Smart Procurement glossy brochures may have to say on the matter.

CVR(T), Challenger 1 and 2, Warrior, LAW-80, AS-90, the Light Gun and almost all warship programmes have been successes, and home-grown.

The SR-177, TSR-2, P-1157, IW, SP-70, and as you mentioned Nimrod AEW (although I fail to see what's so bad about the LRMP Nimrod) have all been home-grown disasters.

Carl Gustav, the GPMG, Milan, Alligator, Fuchs, MLRS and Sidewinder have all been successful foreign purchases.

While one might think that buying things "off-the-shelf" from America is guarantied to result in a successful system going into service, the stories of Skybolt and F-111 indicate otherwise, and Chinook in RAF service has been something of a horror story.

Other countries are quite capable of successful domestic weapons development; consider the Belgian excellence in small-arms, Germany's with AFVs, the French and Germans together in missiles, and Sweden's in all sorts of things, including some first-class fighter aircraft. If those countries can procure successfully from their own defence industries, there is no earthly reason why the UK should not be able to.

The real procurement scandals are, for my money, those where no functioning system, home-grown, collaborative or COTS, has ever been fielded. This includes such yawning capability gaps as a CVR(T) replacement, over-the-beach AEW capability for the RN, and a BIFF system for the Army. All these have been outstanding for ten years or more.

In many cases, a "successful" COTS procurement occurs in a screaming panic when it becomes obvious that the DPA has made a howling horlicks of the original proposed system -- Javelin to fill the gap left by TRIGAT-MR, AWACS to fill the gap left by Nimrod AEW, Minimi to conceal the fact that we had somehow failed to order an adequate section machine-gun and C-17 because we had absent-mindedly forgotten about heavy airlift since the Belfast was retired.

The problem is not one of choosing between domestic and imported products, nor yet one of maintaining the UK defence industrial base, but simply one of the established, persistent, and apparently incurable incompetence of the UK defence procurement organization.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Over the North Sea as an Interceptor the F-15 would easily have matched the Tornado.

I rather doubt that, but I don't have any believeable endurace figures to hand.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

As for deep low level strike, so what.

Every air force in Europe at the time considered low-level penetration the only way to deliver ordnance against Warsaw Pact air defences. The US method of medium-altitude attack relies on large strike packages and lavish EW support in a way that was simply not affordable for other air forces. How successful the US method would have been against WarPac AD in the 1970s or 80s remains to be seen, but the GBAD blokes I know were not optimistic.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

The RAF talked about it's excellent gust response and low level stability, thats code for it's fine in a straight line but turns like a brick, so stay as low as you can because if anything finds you your dead meet.

No, those are actually the characteristics you want from a low-level strike aircraft -- just like Buccaneer or F-111. At the time of its entry into servicem I believe that Tornado also had the best terrain-following radar in the world.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[snips]

When the MRCA project was established the RAF had a bad case of finest hour syndrome.

It wanted a plane that could be the "B of B" spitfire and the Dam Busters Lancaster all in one. What it ended up with was a fighter that was no Spitfire, and a Bomber that was no Lancaster. nether were world class or war winners.

Nope -- the RAF did not want a fighter version of MRCA at the time the project was started, some other European partners were looking for an F-104 replacement.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

As a procurement project it was a mess, it never met it's objectives, was late and over budget,

What objectives did it fail to meet?

You don't think the F-15 stuck to its original budget, do you?

All the best,

John.

[GSX]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

GSX

Try checking some figures, for more than 30 years with less than 10% of the UK population, Scotland has provided Close to 12.5% of UK uniformed manpower.

At the height of GW1, it was estimated that between 20-25% of UK Army manpower in the field were Scots.

It's not Just Scottish regiments, but throughout the British Army.

On current numbers od the 104,000 in the British Army, some 12,000 plus are Scots.

recruitment won't be a problem for Scotland, maintaining it's current size and meeting it's commitments will be for the UK....

Sergei

Your a bit closer, Scotlands share of the UK's £25bn defence budget would be around, £2.25bn, I can't honestly see the Scottish public forking out more than £2bn, and probably about £1.8bn.

There aren't pacifists it's just given the choice of Schools and hospitals and tanks and planes, they won't go for the planes.

Having said that as we don't need Trident, or Hunter killers, No aircraft carriers or assalt ships let alone type 45 frigates, and probably not something as sophisticated as Eurofighter, things could and should get better for the army.

Look at Steves figures, yu can probably buy three Strykers for am M1A2, so we could probably get four six wheeled APC's for the price of a challenger. If our share of the challenger fleet is about 35, thats enough to buy over 100 Strykers.

Our share of the Typhon buy is 20 aircraft at £60m each, in theory if the army got half of that because we went for a cheaper aircraft, that could buy us 500 Strykers, near enough to mechanise a six regiment army.

Peter.

LOL, you get even funnier!!!!

Those guys that join the British forces arent going to join the Irish Army!!! Sorry, Scottish Army....

The SNP, and you, are living in cloud Cuckoo land Im afraid.

Im Scottish, Im proud to be British. Together we are Geat, divided we are ****e!

[GSX]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

John,

The recent programmes you mention prove my point, the question I was answering was " Won't costs rise for a small nation". my arguement was "No it's when you develop your own to meet a narrow national need, that's when costs rise".

The recent examples you give are all ones where the UK has gone off the shelf and made good choices.

The home grown projects, Like Nimrod, (not to mention the disaster of Nimrod AWACs), Astute (although a lot of that is US tech), Typhoon and Phoenix, have been a mess.

the reason I find Javelin, Stryker or similiar attractive is exactly because it meets our needs at a good price and offers a good low risk solution.

The UK programmes you quote are examples where the UK has done what I think Scotland should do.

The Tornado comes in two distinct versions, the ADV variant was supposed to meet the UK's air defence needs, and did so, But if we had bought and equivelent number of F-15's we would have got a better plane for lower cost.

Over the North Sea as an Interceptor the F-15 would easily have matched the Tornado. Over Germany in an active air superiority battle the F-15's performance makes the Tornado look like a Joke.

So with to distinct types of air battle to try to cover, the UK bought a plane that was only decent at one, that's a bad choice.

As for deep low level strike, so what.

The RAF talked about it's excellent gust response and low level stability, thats code for it's fine in a straight line but turns like a brick, so stay as low as you can because if anything finds you your dead meet.

The GR1 in the gulf showed that what the RAF had committed to was a plane that was good at a type of mission that everyone else had abandoned.

What the US was going with PGM's we were trying to do by flying through flak. When we did go to medium altitude ( which was far more effective) we needed Buccaneers to buddy along to designate targets.

When the MRCA project was established the RAF had a bad case of finest hour syndrome.

It wanted a plane that could be the "B of B" spitfire and the Dam Busters Lancaster all in one. What it ended up with was a fighter that was no Spitfire, and a Bomber that was no Lancaster. nether were world class or war winners.

As a procurement project it was a mess, it never met it's objectives, was late and over budget, we only sold them to the saudi's because the US put limits on F-15 sales and they got a huge backhander from Thatchers boy.....

As to the list of King-sized Pigs breakfasts, I agree the MOD couldn't order a Pizza without paying too much to have cold lasange delivered to the wrong address....

To be honest I think we generally agree. If there is a good "Off he Shelf" system out there that meets your needs at a price you can afford, then buy it.

Distorting your procurement to bolster, or sustain defence jobs when it leads to poor kit, or other kit being delayed, abandoned or bought in too few numbers, is false economy.

Peter.

I'm sorry mate, but you totally dont have a clue about the British military or its projects or its ethos.

The Tornado is a fine aircraft, the GR4 is more than capable of hitting targets and doing recce. The GR4 is often called upon to do tasks in the ME that no US aircraft can.

As for the Nimrod, it is the premier Western anti-sub platform and runs ring around its peers. As for other roles, it out performs most.

The Tornado ADV is also a fine interceptor. Note the interceptor caveat there. Its not a dogfighter and it has been adapted to new missiles lately to remain very capable.

Please dont denigrate the UK armed forces for your personall unsupported vision of an independent Scotland. Most, like me, dont want it and feel that the UK is the UK.

In sum, your fantasy world of a Scots military is just that....

[GSX]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

To do what we don't face a Naval threat and we would only use assault ships once very few years, why buy them when we can charter sea lift or hitch a lift from someone bigger, Like I said, the UK France and the like can keep the big stuff.

For your average UN peacekeeping making operation we're not going to be storming the beaches.

look at Sierra Leon, we had a helicopter carrier wiyth Harriers that couldn't bomb anything and troops with nothing heavier than Landrovers. The people on the front line were under equiped to pay for aircraft that we couldn't use.

Peter.

You keep making these bland statements without proof?

Were you with me in Seirra Leone then? What was your unit. I for one was glad that when I was in my Landie I could call on a Harrier for support and not the Irish air force (which doesnt exist).

Peacekeeping is for small nations who think they would maybe like to contribute without getting hurt.

Actuall warfighting is for dedicated nations that do contribute.

I predict your Scottish Army would be filled with parsimonious idiots, while the real men would join the UK Army as is.

[Peter Cairns]

GSX,

I've talked to a lot of Scots in the British army over the last few years and i know a lot more people who have very good comnnections, and I have absolutely no doubt that we will have no more problem recruiting than any other small european army.

By and large the scots are a fairly patriotic bunch (like most nations). If we can average almost 4.2% of 17-35 year old males in the armed forces compared to the UK figure of 3.6%, we should have enough.

We also have ethnicity on our side, `Scotland has a far lower percentage of immigrants than England, and for a range of reasons enlistment from ethnic minorities is lower.

I am all for getting as many from smaller ethnic groups in because it's good when the armed forces reflect the wider population, but it's difficult.

The problem south of the border is that as a proportion relatively few young black people join the British army, and as for young asian muslems, well you can more or less forget it since Iraq.

Actually the largest ethnic group in the British army are probably the Scots.

To be honest I don't mind you being against independence a lot of people are including many Scots, but like most people on this forum, I prefer it when you address the arguements rather than, simply post a few dismissive lines.

John,

I'd accept what you say in many respects, There are some real cock ups in terms of British procurement that go way beyond home grown and their have been some very good home grown stuff too,

What is pretty lamentable are some of the collaborations we've been in.

As to the MR4, it's the late deliver and cost over runs. Because of these the 18 plus aircraft that we're hoped to be about £100-150m each, have turned in to an order for twelve which will probably come in at a project cost of over $250m each, which good plane or not ( and it's still a 50's airliner after all), is far to much for what we are getting.

I've never actually argued that Off the Shelf was the answer but I did content and still do that a nation of Scotlands size would not face higher costs because it was small and had to buy in rather than home produce.

Plenty of small nations buy off the shelf and get by fine, and there are a good few like the Belgians and recently Singapore that have built up good export orientated defence companies.

I agree that as others do it there is no reason why the UK can't have a successful arms industry and in some cases we do, it's just UK procurement that seems screwed up.

In the situation of having to equip an army with a combination of inherited equipment and bought in I see nothing wrong with shopping around to find what suits you best and buying it in, indeed if the FRES meets our needs at is the right price I'll buy that. I certainly have no problem taking our share of the new Panthers, if it meets the spec.

But I don't want Warrior good as it is, because it's to heavy for a C-130 and tracked, and I wouldn't touch Saxons witha barge pole.

I don't think we'll ever agree on the Tornado, the F-15 beat it in to service and was a world beater when it arrived, and it has grown and developed since and a still world class today.

It's had it's problems and it's overuns, but it still managed to beat the Tornadoes replacement Typhoon, for the recent S. Korean order, which for me shows just how poor a project Tornado in both types has always been.

Flamingknives

The principle reason for sending the Para's and Marines to SL, was that, as in the Falklands where the took the lead, they are not only the best Front line units we have ( the SAS being highly specialised), but also the most rapidly deployable.

The advantage of the likes of a Stryker or LAV over a landrover are to fold,

Firstly it's psychological, in a lot of peacekeeping situations the fact that it looks like a real miltary vehicle and not just a pick up has an effect.

Secondly, It is just overall a far more capable vehicle, for all the danger from RPG's I still firmly believe that like WW2 the big danger to infantry are the three M's, ( mines, Mortars and Machineguns), and although a stryker isn't perfect against these three it makes a land rover look like a coffin.

Actually head on a Stryker will fair far better against a flat bed with a 23mm, than it will against a 0.5 HMG, It's about accuracy as much as fire power, and the Stryker is far more likely to get the first shot off and make it hit. although I do like the option of a turret with say a bushmaster, even if only on a six wheeled recon variant.

Lars,

Your absolutely right, I have no illusions how difficult it will be to get my own party collegues no to distort things to keep existing jobs or get new ones in their home towns.

If it can be done it has to be by proving that the money we save can be put to better use either in the armed forces or the civilian sector. it;'s particularly difficult when people are offering the carrot of offset, which often turns out to be not what it seems,

In the South African case of Gripens and Hawks, it looked great on paper, until it turned out that more than half of the work off set to South african companies was then sub contracted back out of the country.

Final general note for everyone,

Mad as it might sound I am really enjoying this even though I seem to be out numbered at least three to one. Why?

Firstly because like any hypothetical discussion, ( it could as easily be the future of the Danish army), I find these things fun.

Secondly, Destructive testing...

Before you put your product out on to the market you give it a good work out and test it till it quite literally falls apart, then you keep the bits that stand up, and replace the bits that don't.

The more I have to answer and justify myself the better the final policy will be able to stand up to scrutiny and attack,

So keep up the good work people, your helping me a lot.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[on the F15] It's had it's problems and it's overuns, but it still managed to beat the Tornadoes replacement Typhoon, for the recent S. Korean order, which for me shows just how poor a project Tornado in both types has always been.

Or is it a reflection of how much money the US will throw at things? The RAF have always operated more Tornados as mud movers than interceptors. The F15 is quite exactly the other way around.

Flamingknives

The principle reason for sending the Para's and Marines to SL, was that, as in the Falklands where the took the lead, they are not only the best Front line units we have ( the SAS being highly specialised), but also the most rapidly deployable.

The advantage of the likes of a Stryker or LAV over a landrover are to fold,

Firstly it's psychological, in a lot of peacekeeping situations the fact that it looks like a real miltary vehicle and not just a pick up has an effect.

Secondly, It is just overall a far more capable vehicle, for all the danger from RPG's I still firmly believe that like WW2 the big danger to infantry are the three M's, ( mines, Mortars and Machineguns), and although a stryker isn't perfect against these three it makes a land rover look like a coffin.

Actually head on a Stryker will fair far better against a flat bed with a 23mm, than it will against a 0.5 HMG, It's about accuracy as much as fire power, and the Stryker is far more likely to get the first shot off and make it hit. although I do like the option of a turret with say a bushmaster, even if only on a six wheeled recon variant.

I remain to be convinced that armour is a good way to defeat an insurgency. It seems like a good way to isolate yourself from the population, which is at odds with building up local intel.

Furthermore, places like Sierra Leone, from the pictures I've seen of the place, aren't too hot in the accessibility for armour stakes. Too many unmetalled roads to mulch up with anything remotely heavy and not enough open country to get around them in.

The more I have to answer and justify myself the better the final policy will be able to stand up to scrutiny and attack,

So keep up the good work people, your helping me a lot.

Peter.

Likewise.

[Peter Cairns]

flamingknives,

You might have missed it but a while back I said one difference was that I tended to see the likes of Stryker as a backup to traditional British style infantry as opposed to the full US BCT concept.

In this respect I am very much for patrols on foot with the LAV or the likes in Support, I read somewhere that is how the Australian used theirs in East Timor.

Given the danger of ambush and mines,etc, it is better to have your people have protection when they need to move by vehicle, but that isn't the same as having them tied to them or fight from them. It full combat they can, but in counter insurgency the more you mix with the people you need to win over the better.

The LAV or Stryker has an advantage that unlike Tracked armour it doesn't rip up soft roads, alienating the local population like Bradleys would.

I am in too minds about going for an amphibious version, as in lots of places infrastructure is almost none existant ( or dissappears in the rainy season), so it gives you flexibility without needing to have a lot of bridging equipment.

In addition, domestically Scotland has a huge amount of mountainous terrain, lochs , rivers and bog land, not to mention forestry roads and single track roads with narrow bridges, so a relatively narrow wheeled option makes far more sense than something wide with tracks.

Peter.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[snips]

I've never actually argued that Off the Shelf was the answer but I did content and still do that a nation of Scotlands size would not face higher costs because it was small and had to buy in rather than home produce.

ISTM that for the case of a putative independent Scotland this is making a virtue of necessity.

Unless the first mission of the Scottish Army is to annex Barrow-in-Furness and Newcastle-upon-Tyne at least as far as the Scotswood Road, what defence industrial base would the independent country have?

All the best,

John.

[Peter Cairns]

John,

We'll we have BAe in Govan, but thats not Scottish, amd we have Ferranti in Edinburgh, which i think is now part of Finnamechanica (?), and we also have Raytheon in Edinburgh too.

What we actually have is some good R&D technical people and manufacturing, but it's all divisons of foreign companies. Having said that thats becoming pretty much the European norm, with a few big trans european players with facilities scattered across countries.

In addition when you look at the big projects you see that they now tend to be one or two big players leading an alliance of a whole series of smaller companies, below which is a host of subcontractors some of whom are doing work for more than one consortium bidding for the same contract.

In general I think a lot of politicains who talk about "Our Defence Industries", don't seem to understand just how global the buisness now is and how blurred national demarkation has become.

So I don't see us Having a sort of "Scottish Aerospace", to match Bae, but I think divisons of defence companies with Scottish facilities will continue.

The order for a BVR missile would be an example. The current to contenders are Meteor and AAMRAM, both of which arebuilt by consortium who have facilities in Edinburgh, so what ever one we went for we would in theory have a winner and a loser.

Ultimately the extent to which a nation of Scotlands size can have successful defence industries depends on the ability of the businesses in Scotland, to get orders based on quality and price, whether they be Scottish companies or part of an International one.

What a nation of Scotlands size can't really do, is keep them alive by feeding them orders or even off set, because we just won't be buying enough to keep them going.

Thats not to say that we won't try to get as much Scottish content in as we can, but the break off point must be when in order to get a share of the buisness, you start to compromise on the kit.

Peter.

[GSX]

Peter

Is any of this Scottish Defence plan written down?

I would be interested to see how big the whole force is to be and its composition. All I can find on the Net is mad ravings of intent.

To be honest I don't mind you being against independence a lot of people are including many Scots, but like most people on this forum, I prefer it when you address the arguements rather than, simply post a few dismissive lines.

It’s hard to try and not be dismissive. I have served in the UK Military for 21 years. I have served alongside many of the smaller nations. I have also served in peacekeeping missions such as Kosovo alongside the Irish and Norwegian Armies.

The Irish analogy is a good one as it would probably be about what Scotland could aim for. They have a grand total of 8500 military personnel of which approximately 800 serve in overseas peacekeeping roles at any one time. They do not have an Air Force and have just 7 ships, none larger than 1800 tonnes (I believe).

Is this the future for Scotland? Also as I understand it an SNP Government would pull out of NATO as well? This seems strange as most European nations are clamoring to get into NATO. Then you have the no nuclear weapons on Scottish soil policy, oh and a mad plan to resurrect disbanded Regiments, also I suppose you would have to pay all the military pensions of every one of the former members of the military living in Scotland?

So you see, the more I think about it the dafter it all seems…..

[ November 10, 2005, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: GSX ]

[Lars]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Ultimately the extent to which a nation of Scotlands size can have successful defence industries depends on the ability of the businesses in Scotland, to get orders based on quality and price, whether they be Scottish companies or part of an International one.

What a nation of Scotlands size can't really do, is keep them alive by feeding them orders or even off set, because we just won't be buying enough to keep them going.

Exactly.

So, have you considered the fact that by leaving a union with England, you'll gut funding for something like the Royal Navy? Leaving you in even worse position than you were before?

Cuz I know you got the hots to go off haring around on peacekeeping missions, but I really think your missing your core mission as part of an island nation. Probably end up a defense freeloader like say…Ireland.

[Peter Cairns]

Lars

Well as the Royal Navy is reorganising itself towards expeditionary and Littoral warfare, a policy we generally don't support, why should we mind about taking money from the Royal Navy.

If you look at my points on similiarity to Nez Zealand, and to an extent Denmark, you see a clear choice.

Either Scottish tax payers money goes to the UK to fund a blue water navyii'll suited and not even deployed to defend Scotlands waters or interests, or it can go to build a Scottish Navy specifically designed to defend Scotlands particular interests.

As to defeding an island Nation, neither Scotland, England or Wales are island nations, they are nations on an island, which is a different thing.

I am not keen to hare off on peacekeeping but i do think it's important and where we can make a meaningful contribution for our size.

The alternative suggest is to invest in a Blue Water navy when there is no credible threat, Russian isn't a danger for the forseeable future, England is an ally and Norway and Denmark Friends.

What would a big navy be for, to intimidate Ireland and Iceland.

You see ireland as a free loader, well from their point of view spending your tax payers money replicating or enhancing existing the already abundant naval capacity of a region with a historically low level of threat doesn't make much sense.

As a Scot I'll remind you of Adam Smith and the analogy of the Light House. Everyone using the port wants it for saftey but no one wants to pay for it, so it's a game of trying to get everyone to pay while evryone tries to wriggle out of paying.

You can be all moral about it or you can do what most people do, try to get your allies to fork out as much as possible so that you can spend as little as possible.

At the core of the Nato debate about Europe not paying it's way, is essentially attempts by every single Nato member to get away with paying as little as possible by getting allies to fork out more.

At the end of the Day the arguement that by spending 0.6% GDP on defence that Ireland is a freeloader compared to Norway that spend three times that, can be countered by the arguement that for spending three times as much Norway is no more secure or safe than Ireland.

Without reinforcing the sterotype of mean Scots.....

"If Your Dumb Enough to Pay for It, We're Smart Enough to Let You".....

If that seems cynical it is, but then it's what everyone else does, and if you don't see that, you are looking at international relations, even between allies, athrough reinforced rose tinted glasses.

Peter.

[Peter Cairns]

GSX

No it's not written down as such it's a combination of things we have discussed and my own thoughts, the things I am arguing for, the whole thing is pretty fluid and I am not sure how much of my views will make it to a review by 2007 , or whether the party will even endorse it.

I'd suspect a total force to be all volunteer in the region of 15,000 possibly 16,000, roughly equivelent to our population share of the UK's target of 180,000 by 2008.

I'd roughly put the army at about 10,000, which is 66%, I think the Uk target of 105,000 for the Army works out about 60% of total all service uniformed personnel.

I think the Navy would be slightly larger than the Irish, but not in the sense of larger ships, but in having probably more ISV's of the NZ type. Again this is very small by RN standard but sufficent for the size of Scotlands waters and the level of threat for the next decade or so.

We would have a combat capable airforce ( in part it would have a maritime strike role, to compensate for the lack of any large naval vessels), probably based around a single type of fighter, more in the F-16 class than Tornado, but the type is open.

Size of the combat arm would be lower than Norway and Denmark and more akin to the type of orders the Poles Hungarians and Czechs are looking at.

As to Nato, Ireland, Finland , Austria, ( the closest in size to Scotland) plus Sweden and Switzerland get by fine out of Nato, and economically they have all raced ahead of Scotland. Looking at the Nations clamouring to get in most are choosing the best option for them given there economic situation and recent history.

But because it makes sense for them doesn't mean it makes sense for us, that in a sense ids what independence is about, the freedom to choose.

If you look at the arc of countries around us you have Ireland, neutral low spending, Iceland Nato, no army, Norway Nato just under 2% GDP ( and a policy of no Nuclear weapons on it's soil), Finland, neutral about 1.5%, Denmark Nato about 1,6%, UK Nato 2.4%.

We are surrounded by a range of options each different, no two the same. The UK has the NHS, most of Europe has private health insurance, does that mean the UK is wrong and should abandon the NHS , or just different.

Most of the Nato members of Europe have conscription, are you in favour of that for the UK, or should we be free to make our own choices about our own armed forces.

As too disbanded Regiments, for me the most effective and sensible way to organise for deployment is around a core regiment with the ability to deploy it whole or part of it.

If you assume a profile of 6 months deployed and two years home, then to sustain a long term deployment you need five Regiments. However this leaves no slack to deal with an emergency or crisis.

Therefore in order to give minimum cover without over stretch you need a minimum of six, one out in say in Bosnia, four home on rotation, and one spare to cover an emergency like, Dafur , Sierra Leon, or East Timor.

The ability to contribute to one long term Un mission and the capacity to offer short term support to meet a rapidly emerging new problem seems a reasonable contribution for a nation of only 5 million. it's probably more than denmark or Norway do.

I know if you check the press or Hansard you'll only find SNP MP's talking about HIstoric this or that and a betrayal of our brave boys and tradition, but thats jsut politicians points scoring or playing politics for votes.

The arguement for six medium weight and reinforced combined arms regiments similair to British battle groups or use BCT Stryker Battalions, is about how best to organise an army of 10,00o men to meet our objectives.

Pensions is an issue but not insurmountable. it's true that because the proportion of Scots in the British armed forces being proportionally higher, means that we will have to foot a larger proportion for a long time, whether they live in Scotland or not.

But well we'll have to live with that, it's not ideal but nor is in major. If you renage or short change on things like that it's false economy as it just ends up undermining recruitment and retention.

We'll also probably have to pick up the tab at some point for GW syndrome as well.

I big problem is that by committing only 2% of GDP compared to the UK's 2.4% while having roughly the same proportional size of armed forces, is that to match or better Uk terms and conditions, ( a necessity in a competitive labour market), then the proportion of spending on personell will probably have to rise from the currennt UK 40% to around 50%.

This necessitates cutting procurement back from the UK 35-40% to probably 20-25% ( with the difference increase spending on general support). That looks bad, but it's one of the reasons for the samll navy reduce airforce, and medium weight forces like stryker instead of Challenger and Warrior.

To an extent it's the balance every nation makes between an army with great pay and conditions but crap equipment and a well Superbly equiped army that no one will join becasue of the crap money.

As I tend to feel that the UK for too long has spend to much on Big high tech war fighting stuff, particularly for the RN and RAF,, to the detriment of the man on the ground who has been doing the real ahrd work for the last five decades in the army, it's not surprising that the model I support redresses the balance.

Even if you use 8% of UK GDP for Scotland ( which excludes oil), If you look at the current and up coming programmes, Astute, New Carrier, JSF, Typhoon, Type 45, and ultimately trident replacement, then 8% of that is more than double what it would cost to put in place the level of Kit I have described, so the lower procurement figure is adequate, (tight but we can do it).

I'd rather have quality, medium, well maintained kit for everyday tasks, manned by well trained and paid personell, than heavy high tech, poorly supported, kit we rarely use, manned by people who were overstretch, over burdened and poorly paid and who increasing feel that there best efforts wil only get them another kick in the teeth from their own government.

Peter.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Without reinforcing the sterotype of mean Scots.....

"If Your Dumb Enough to Pay for It, We're Smart Enough to Let You".....

If that seems cynical it is, but then it's what everyone else does, and if you don't see that, you are looking at international relations, even between allies, athrough reinforced rose tinted glasses.

Peter.

Again, which brings us back to why bother?

Look, unless you're planning to invade London, you don't need an army at all. Could get away with just a strong Coast Guard. And you've already stated you're not going anywhere without others, yet you don't support the RN expeditionary policy, and Scotland certainly can't afford C-5's, so your whole rational is rather strange. You're going to build an army that will rot.