The British Military Future?

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

We cannot go it alone nowadays, as a second division economy in the world.

The UK economy hovers between 3rd and 4th largest in the world - hardly second div. in my view

Take away the speculative markets in London [hedge funds and so forth] and I reckon that as a real economy making, and inventing real things we no longer come close to being a first rank economy.

As for expecting the fluff of the financial sector to provide a solid base to survive hard times, be they inspired by a fuel crisis, or even the effects of global warming [whether this is man-made or natural it is happening] I rather doubt that they place us even among the second rant of economies. They would be the first casualties of a recession. I would bet the German economy would survive a downturn better than the UK and they are definately less dynamic than th UK according to the bald statistics just now!

Fredrik

Fredrick,

Have to disagree on this. There is nothing in Beano's post that suggests that the UK cannot use Trident independant of the USA. At any point in time there is at least one Trident submarine out there ready to go. Whilst the witholding of GPS and waether information would be an inconvenience the gyro positioning system and alternative weather sources should be sufficient. Just because we leased the system from the USA doesn't mean that we can't use it any more than the Japanese cam prevent me using my car.

If however over a more protracted period the USA decided to withold co-operation then there would be more of a problem, more so than unavailability of Honda parts.

Regards,

Willy.

Regards,

Willy.

Willy,

The fact that the UK maintains its Trident nuclear arsenal provides us the facade of a global military superpower. Any British Prime Minister who gave the order to launch a Trident nuclear weapon without approval from the American administration would be inconceivable in my view. Serious repercussions from Washington would follow for making this presumption, which don’t forget, the USA has granted itself the prerogative rank as the Worlds No 1 policeman.

Trident is a weapon of coercion, and if it was ever fired from a UK boat, it would be to back-up, give credence to a first strike by the USA. Just like launching UK cruise missiles onto the roof tops of Baghdad was done, to give legitimacy to using such weapons in urban areas.

You’re quite right on the GPS data though, it would hold up acquisition targeting, and degrade Tridents ability to hit its intended target.

Just think given the American record of weapon acquisition, it could end up hitting Bagdad, California!

Beano

Beano,

Don't disagree that the British use of Trident without the involvement of the USA is unlikely. My point had been that, to the best of my knowledge, it was technically possible.

I'd be very surprised if the Americans, and therefore the British, hadn't planned for a scenario where they were denied GPS. I've seen the gyroscope based system is location. It's a substantial piece of kit, heavily mass damped and shock mounted and no doubt sufficient for the intended requirement.

Regards,

Willy.

15th January 2007

On occasion in my real World, I sometimes get invited to put questions electronically to MP’s and Cabinet Ministers. Now it just so happens today I’ve received a request to pose a question -questions to Des Browne the Defence Secretary on Wednesday 17th of January.

Defence is always a hotly debated topic on here, so I’m asking, giving the forum members the chance, if they have any questions they’d like asking.

These questions have to be strictly related to Britain’s defence issues and because the questions are vetted, they must be sensible, polite, and reasonably intelligent for me and them to accept it, even then it could be overlooked and not asked.

So post them up or email them to me, and I’ll use my judgement as to which one, ones’ will be asked.

I will post the reply if we get one, up for viewing on Wednesday evening.


I have asked questions on other issues before and been equally astounded when a reply was forthcoming!

Beano Bona Fide

Dear Beano, and Willy,

What Keegan wrote all those years ago, was that using the system without Ammerican [US] support would be "pratically impossible." I suspect that denying GPS data would make using it rather a hit and mis affair... Not practical, perhaps. Usable, but possibly useless...

I don't know of course, but he was no fool, and was carefully read in many quarters...

All the best from Fredrik

Fredrik,

Was Keenan correct in his article? I have the title to the article he probably used, but I cannot foresee the Government confirming it though as this information is classified as secret in Britain.

Willy and his mate right? There could be an inertia system within the missile that uses flaps and weights, along with GPS, thus allowing it to become highly manoeuvrable and accurate, a D5 was test fired in the Atlantic from HMS Vanguard in October 2005.

The Trident systems operational life runs out in 2020, but given that the US has approved four upgrades to the system, and increased the service life of its own boats from 30yrs to 44yrs, with the oldest boat being retired in 2029. Makes one wonder?

The Government will no doubt buy these upgrades for the four Vanguard class boats we have. The annual expenditure is roughly 1.9bn -2.1bn 2006-2007 then increasing by .1bn in the following years?

This only covers the cost of the nuclear boats, not the other means of delivering weapons like land based and air borne delivery.

Whether the US or NATO ordered a launch it would be the PM who sends the Launch Code to the boat. This very act makes us independent, I hope!

Beano

Beano,

As you pointed out in your post Trident has two navigations systems, GPS and the Inertial navigation system. The GPS gives an absolute position relative to the GPS satelites. The Inertial system calculates the position relative to the launch point by measuring the forces acting on a set of gyroscopes (the forces are proportional to acceleration). Inertial systems based on mechanical gyroscopes, whilst ultimately not as accurate as a GPS fix, are more than adequate for the task, they have to be for the scenario where GPS is not available (for example if the Russians shoot down or jam the satelites).

More modern missile systems have moved from mechanical gyroscopes to solid state gyroscopes that measure acceleration by the force exerted on a strain gauge by a mass - no moving parts very reliable, very small, very accurate and no need for a system to spin up the gyro.

Regards,

Willy.

Can we at a pinch use Galileo find our way to far off points of the globe if the USA pulls the plug on the GPS system we now use? I have seen links suggesting that Galileo or indeed any system that uses a non-US controlled gps will be very high on the list of targets to be "shut down" if the need should ever arise.
US TO SHUT DOWN GPS IN CRISIS?
PENTAGON: SPACE IS FOR AMERICANS ONLY

Now the Trident issue has been examined [even if all the facts we are allowed to know may not be conclusively shown to us as subjects in UK till the secret papers are released many years hence], please may I steer this Thread towards what members think about our higher than EU average spending on the military nowadays [as historically], and whether it should continue at this level, or move towards the European norm, with the concomitant reduction in the UK's abilty to join major warfare?

Sincerely from Fredrik

In response to you latest post Frederik, you need to start from the fact that most EU countries, (less France) have little or no post 'empire'/ post colonial responsibilities. Their military and political focus has been almost exclusively within the Continent of Europe for obvious reasons.

The UK has traditionally been a gobal power due to Empire, trade, and of course, the Navy. Our ventures into Europe have rarely been by choice - more when forced by events (napoleon, hitler etc).

Therefore, to switch to the EU model would be a massive change of strategy; this doesn't mean we couldn't do this, but in my opinion, we definitely shouldn't.

Dear Jo,

Your point is wonderful and though I hesitated to answer it in a rush, here is my thought on it in the cold light of my thoughts on the modern and changing world, or at least as I see it.

The British Empire was a phenomenon which spread great cultural values and misery in large proportions, if not equal ones.

As a nation, Britain has considerable responsibility for the state of the Middle Eastern Arab Nations today, as it does, paradoxically for Isreal, and Palestine. The meddling in these countires in terms of drawing awkward and some ultimately wrong borders has created countless difficulties. We also have considerable historical responsibility for such cases as Zimbabwe, where the independance settlement saw Ian Smith replaced by Mugabe!

In fairness, I would very much prefer the military deployed to sort out the former Rhodesia than seconding the half baked efforts of the US to secure the oil of Iraq, and quite likely an attempt to secure the whole of the oil in the rest of that benighted part of the world. But truth to tell the military machine in the UK today is nothing but a plaything of the horribly meddling and self serving governments we have had for the last twenty five years. This applies equally to the Falklands in my view. The inhabitants would have been better served by giving them UK residency than placing ourselves in hock even more to the US for their grudgiung gift of intelligence [and military aid] to recapture those desolate acres in the South Atlantic. Even better would have been to have seen a diplaomatic solution leading to a condominium, and eventual ceding of the territory to Argentina, much as happened with Honk Kong to China [without a condominium]. The inevitability of it makes it "real politic," and desirable with a satisfactory and bloodless change of power, and government.

In other words, if as an ex-Imperial power, we actually were to live up to our responsibilities, we would plough an entirely different course than that of following, rather painfully, the US's policy. If all we can do in World terms is act as second fiddle to the US, and ignore the real problems for which we not only have some responsibilty, but also the power to change for the good, like Zimbabwe, then we would be better to accept our position as a significant, but not an absolutely top European power, and get on with it, keeping good diplomacy in Europe. As Eastern Europe is assimulated, strangely, I think we shall see a stronger stand against the the over-whelming power, till now, of the Paris/Berlin Axis, and this is only to the good in my view. We should get over the Empire, and accept that the new Imperialists are the US and will become, whether we like it or not, the Chinese. We cannot possibly win in these cases, and so trying is futile. Neither is a threat to us, but we can work with them, without loosing credibility. The government has done huge damage to the UK's standing in the World in its adventure in the Iraq. We are strong enough to damage our reputation, but certainly not strond enough to win. If the US pulll out, in the face of catastrophic Civil War and defeat, so will the UK, as we are impotent to really face this off.

Thus I would think that we, as a nation, would be better saving our money and working very hard to make the continuance of a free and civilised Europe more of a possibilty, and working within the civilsed consensus of Europe for a World more at Peace.

I hope you will forgive these opinions. Fredrik

Dear Frederik,

sorry for the delay in replying; I rarely drop into this room.

Your points are very valid. I agree with the argument that we have more reason to be acting in Zimbabwe than in Iraq, but fear that were we to do so, the accusations of racism would fly thick and fast from the short-sighted left wing (who were very keen to hand Africa over to its own regimes, but sadly fail to recognise that this has not always been a better outcome for some of the long-suffering inhabitants as I was told in no uncertain terms by non-white Zimbabweans when I travelled there).

As for the Falklands, we must differ. The population has always been firmly against any change of 'ownership' or power-sharing; who are we to deny them their wishes having placed them (ancestrally of course) there in the first place. At what stage do post-colonial responsibilities become 'time-expired'?

On Iraq I shall not comment; as a serving soldier it would be inappropriate for me to do so when many of my friends are deployed there.

As for the EU model which you espouse; again we must differ. It would be possible to reduce to the EU common denominator and allow only peace-keeping/peace-enforcement operations in the future. But this would deny us the possibility of undertaking war-fighting or high intensity operations in the short or medium term. This level of capability cannot be switched on or off overnight. If you can be certain that we will never need this again, leaving the world stage to the USA, China and Russia then fine. I believe this would not be sensible.

Fredrik and Jo,


As of 1st Jan 2007

I was under the impression that the European Rapid Reactionary Force came into being on this date and is separate from NATO. This force is apparently made up of a total 60,000 troops, 1,500 from each EU member Country and deployable for one year, the role being on humanitarian, peace keeping and disarmament after conflict, with the respective Governments keeping the option of not deploying their troops if they’re committed elsewhere. I think the1500 is for land based troops only?

I cannot find the article I read, so put me right if I’m wrong!

My question was not put to the Defence Minister on the 17th Jan. The question I asked, was, has a feasibility study been carried out into the possibility of moving Britain towards a “Virtual Nuclear Deterrent” in the future, like 30-40yrs being the future. If so, is it public information?

Jo,

I hope you don’t mind me asking this; one of the numerous questions put to the Defence Minister Des Browne, came from family members of loved ones serving in theatre, and was regarding soldier morale?

Des said it was excellent, is this true?

Beano

I'm treading on dangerous ground here....

To turn it back to you..who do you think might know better? The families in regular (hopefully) contact with their soldiers or the Defence Minister whose visits are of necessity brief and who will generally meet a few personnel in benign condidtions. Soldiers will generally respond positively to their political masters as it is our nature to get on with a job as well as we can. IF morale were to be low, it would probably not be seen during a visit.

I suspect that morale remains quite high, although accompanied by some frustration over the level of commitments and the lack of suitable equipment and vehicles which has been highlighted in the press by senior officers several times...so I am not giving away state secrets here!

If you are interested in more views on this topic, have a look at the Army Rumour Service website....www.arrse.co.uk

and this thread might give you a feel.....

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=55715/p...der=asc/start=0.html

Jo,

Thanks for the reply and that link (love the name), it confirmed what I suspected, that he (Des) was giving glib answers to poignant questions!

Right, I’ve been granted another 86,400 seconds today; so I’m going to use a couple to thank you and your comrades for volunteering and signing on the dotted line!

Thanks,

Beano
Discipline is the soul of our Army.