The “principles that Number 10, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Ministry of Defence are guided by” have been branded “progressively obsolete”, by the former Defence and Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

The stark warning comes in a report, published today by the Henry Jackson Society, which concludes that 15 core assumptions of British foreign policy are outdated and no longer apply to the world we live in.

They are:

  1. Globalisation is an immutable and desirable force;
  2. The West will remain technologically dominant;
  3. Liberalism and democracy will continue to spread;
  4. ‘Zones of chaos’ are the primary threat;
  5. Global governance is replacing geopolitical competition;
  6. The European continent is Britain’s overriding geostrategic concern;
  7. Britain is central to the Euro-Atlantic System;
  8. The Gulf and Middle East is of growing importance to British interests;
  9. The Indo-Pacific zone presents economic opportunities;
  10. Nations will respect globally ‘shared spaces’;
  11. Britain is a pivotal, but declining, power;
  12. The pursuit of national security and economic growth are Britain’s primary national interests;
  13. Britain is best served by working with allies and partners, particularly the US;
  14. National cohesion is becoming less relevant;
  15. Military and diplomatic power have declined in importance.

The report’s assessments – backed by Sir Malcolm – are that the assumptions are either outdated, inaccurate or wholly erroneous.  It warns that each of them of them require urgent re-evaluation.  The proposals come as the Government conducts the “deepest review of Britain’s security, defence, and foreign policy since the end of the Cold War”.

The core assumptions studied are those the author, James Rogers, Director of the Global Britain Programme at the Henry Jackson Society, claims lie at the heart of British foreign policy that have lost relevance or accuracy in the past 20 years.

Sir Malcolm’s remarks are included within the foreword to the report, in which he also says that “unlike Japan or Germany” the UK will remain a “global power” as China continues its rise.

The author blames Britain’s supposed foreign policy drift on the enduring influence of “globalisation” beyond its applicability, which Julian Lewis MP (Former Chairman of the Defence Select Committee) blames in an endorsement to the report for the “weakness of our current posture”.

However, the report warns that a detour to either ‘compensationism’ or ‘isolationism’ is equally inadvisable.

In response to this changing scenario, the report recommends that the Government should:

  • Appoint a National Strategy Council to oversee and coordinate the work of the UK’s overseas facing Departments.
  • Place DFID’s work under the purview of the FCO.
  • Build a royal yacht to boost Britain’s soft-power presence around the world.
  • Restore defence spending, up to pre-1991 relative levels.
  • Reallocate aid spending to research (including through an advanced research projects agency) into green technologies.
  • Accept that Britain is facing increasingly powerful, revisionist states.

The report’s author, James Rogers, commented:

“As Britain leaves the European Union and begins the deepest foreign, security and defence policy review since the end of the Cold War, we need to undertake a thorough re-appraisal of the dominant assumptions that have guided our strategic thinking. If we, as a nation, get those wrong, everything else will be misconstrued. As wider state competition intensifies, Britain needs to re-empower itself to compete with revisionist and expansionist powers.”

Read the report here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

84 COMMENTS

  1. Build a royal yacht to boost Britain’s soft-power presence around the world.

    This has been floated a few times in the last few years, even by some prominent serving polies. I think its a great idea – allow the public to donate alongside the government to have a world beating UK yacht manufacturer like Sunseeker build the Royals a yacht to demonstrate the capabilities of British industry and provide a platform for diplomatic showboating

    • Do you really believe that Charles III sailing into a port somewhere in the world on a British yacht, disembarking, and then giving a condescending lecture to people he considers his inferiors in which he tells them how to live their lives even if they weren’t born into privilege advances the interests of the UK?

      • I think the optics for having smaller nations of having a British Royal Family yacht in their harbour with all their heads of industry and government meeting the Family and representatives of British industries would mean a lot to them and could advance our interests by winning over the sympathies of small national governments around the world. Exactly what Britannia was used for

        • One small difference. The UK is now a middle level power with very little to offer. Style over substance doesn’t work.

          • Not seen the immense amount of new building in London’s Square mile (actually about ten nowadays) and heard the news of all those companies jostling to get space in London to do business? I’d hate to think what the situation would be like if were weren’t so insignificant. Not quite on our toes on this one are we Cas?

          • Interesting view but not backed up by actual facts or an understanding of the meaning Of the word “middle” or the use of the term mid level power.

            No the uk is not a middle level power. Don’t mistake not being the most powerful nation or second ranking nation with being A middle level power. Depending on the method used there are between 196 and about 245 nations and or independent political territories.

            So a middle level power will be hanging around the 100 wealthiest/influential or military power.

            A nation like new Zealand could be considered a middle level power. The fifth wealthiest, technological advanced and nuclear armed nation that is the United Kingdom is not in anyway ( militarily, Geopolitically, economically, scientifically or culturally) a middle level power.

          • From a distance the continuing strength of Britains armed forces is draw dropping -until one realizes it has no choice as unlike a host of smaller countries there are none that will come to its defence,its only option to becomes a client state of the US

          • I get sick and tired of seeing comments about UK being a ‘small island or a mid level power with no influence etc . You never see such statements bandied around similar sized nations,
            This defeatist and declinist mind set I believe infests Parliament and is one of the major reasons why UK Governments seem to persist with such feeble foreign and defence policy’s, we play a strong hand poorly as our leaders have no confidence and or interest in pursuing a more robust foreign and defence policy, a legacy entrenched I feel historically by the soporific effects of the EU membership, the loss of Empire and the and the rise of US dominance. Now UK is once more reliant to a greater degree on its own resources I hope we will see things change, I wont hold my breath though

      • The greater use of a Royal yacht for soft power could be as an informal and formal meeting point for government ministers and companies overseas, not only as a one to one for Britain and the country they are visiting but also for a number countries to meet up with us acting as a host. Even if officially those countries aren’t getting on to well.
        Call it a kind of wide ranging mobile (formal and informal) ACAS service provided for free by Britain.
        It could aid with general intelligence gathering and act as a mobile business suite for hire.

      • Yes. Would go down a treat Cas me old friend. It explains why people are swimming with their own children to get to countries run by people such as H.R.H. and way from countries run by people like you. Pip! Pip!

          • H.R.H. in this context refers to an erroneous citation by our friend Casmir of His Royal Highness the Prince Charles (somewhat impertinently referred to as ‘Charles III’, but no matter). Her Majesty the Queen is not H.R.H. but Her Majesty. Her Majesty is Head of State. She gets people in to run her countries and Dominions.

      • Oh dear someone is a bit grumpy! What happened, Charles bagged of with the missus or something. You continued dislike of anything UK is both expected and amusing. Please continue as we wait wirh aited breath your next nugget. Have a great day old bean.

          • He has a record for it on this site. Remember the Russian bots who used to post? He is the US equivalent. I can just see him on his RAM truck now, confederate flag waving from the back and MAGA hat on!

    • A Royal yacht is a massive no from me. While it might make some of its guests “ohh and ah” it seems an expensive way to show Britain off.

      I’ll confess I’m no fan of the concept of a monarchy so a tad biased.

      • The thing is, showing off is generally expensive. That’s why it’s showing off.

        Like them or not, the royals are still the best ambassadors for this country. They’re influential, well educated, apolitical, and instantly known around the world. Part of why the UK is the world leader in soft power is the Commonwealth, which the Queen and most likely her heirs head up. Throw in the ridiculous amount of tourism and business they generate, and they more than pay for themselves. A royal yacht would be a solid investment, people nowadays love anything they can post on Instagram

        Granted I’m a royalist myself, so I’m likely biased the other way

    • I like the idea but let’s drop the name “Royal”. Funded by the Foreign Office or DTI (or whatever new depts. have been set up, can’t remember.) It’s probably best the Royals don’t go anywhere near it for now – leave it to Captain’s of Industry, Research depts./innovation buffs and perhaps environmentalists to a degree

  2. Time to increase the defence budget significantly HMG.

    In short and after Brexit, be able to stand on our own two feet without the help of NATO, or the USA.

    It really is nieve to think that other countries will come to our aid at the drop of a hat if and when required to do so.

    Spain was a recent example when they pulled out of supporting a US-led task force heading to the straits of Hormuz only last year.

    We are heading, sadly, towards yet another cold war “according to the experts” with China building up a huge naval task force in south-east Asia while conducting war games with Russia.

    You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out where this could lead to, with the USA suggesting that Europe will have to take care of itself while they deal with China if a war was to break out simultaneously.

    China’s population is growing and their fishing stocks have started to run out, I wonder if this could lead to confrontation in the coming years ahead? according to the attached link, it could very well be the case.

    https://qz.com/948980/china-has-fished-itself-out-of-its-own-waters-so-chinese-fishermen-are-now-sticking-their-rods-in-other-nations-seas/

    • >China’s population is growing

      I agree with all apart from this. China’s fertility rate is in terminal decline and population will fall through the floor over the next decade. This is an all but insurmountable problem to China

      • The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has had a strict “One child per family” policy for several decades. Families that violate that policy were severely punished. It was implemented to help curb their rapidly growing population at that time.

        Presently, they have reversed that policy due to the declining numbers of the younger generations. Those in power in the PRC have realized that without a large enough youth base they would lose not only their standing in the World community, but will be outstripped by their local rival India, population wise.

        • It not even as cynical as political power. It’s about the mixed reality of global economics, life expectancy and the Resource requirements of health and social care. It a problem for almost all leading nations. You need more young people to work and create wealth, but they become old people who need care and the creation of wealth to look after them, including large numbers of young people to look after them( who are not creating wealth), so you need to keep growing your population.

          The problem is:

          Most biological organisms go a bit nuts if they are in a place of overpopulation/population stress ( fighting, eating babies, voting for Boris ( sorry could not help it) ). We do see this in large cities, with increased mental health and violence compared to the rest of a population.

          no environment can support an infinite ( population of an organism ) number of people and it will collapse catastrophically When a point Is hit, leading to most of that population dying.

          Bit of a catch 22 really.

    • This was an interesting piece I found in relation to future conflicts.
      Tempest-Loyal wingman is beginning to make a great deal of sense.

      If the Navy wants to counter China’s anti-ship cruise missiles and increasing naval capabilities, it must resurrect the Cold War-era “outer-air battle” concept, which focused on longer-range aircraft to counter Russia’s bombers. However, instead of fighting at 200-plus nautical miles, the air wing will have to fight at 1,000 nautical miles, the study found.”

      https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/22/amid-a-heated-aircraft-carrier-debate-the-us-navy-sees-funding-slashed-for-a-next-generation-fighter/

        • I’ve advocated for the NSM/JSM many times in the past on here Helions that we should invest in them for the UK mainland as you are most probably aware!

          Fixed or mobile would be a very useful addition to just purely ship and air-launched, creating a pool of missiles across all services.

          Mobile launchers could theoretically be installed on the QEs to further protect our carriers.

          If 1,000 nautical miles is the range suggested for future delivery systems, we clearly need something with increased distance.

          The suggestion being, future UAVs with a round trip radius of about 3000 miles.

          • Hi Nigel,

            I remember back in the Cold War days Sweden developed the concept of coastal defence battalions. These were mixed arms formations with artillery, SAM’s and AshM mounted on trucks along with supporting infantry.

            I have wondered whether a similar concept with long range SAM’s and SSM’s would not be a useful additon to UK Homeland defence. Truck mounting the Sea Viper could provide a mobile air / anti ballistic missile defence capability for the UK and major deployed formations.

          • I think it is an area we sometimes overlook ChariotRider.

            Improved coastal defences, including additional long-range radar installations, is not a bad thing and relatively cheap in comparison to some of the new equipment that we require.

            Aster 30 Block 1 SRBM plus Aster 30 Block 1NT MRBM along with an anti-ship capability would be a very good place to start.

            It will certainly help in deterring any future aggressors.

      • Agree, with the outer-air battle concept. The US Navy have often lamented the passing of their F14s, as the F18s simply don’t have the speed or range. The future F/A-XX requirement is aimed to bring back a lot of the F14s capabilities, i.e. an outer CAP screen armed with long range air to air missiles.

        There are a lot of similarities between the US Navy’s F/A-XX requirement and those of the Typhoon replacement i.e. Tempest!

        • As I mentioned above DavyB, Tempest/Loyal wingman seems to be the answer to the problem.

          With the knowledge gained from earlier test flights of Taranis, plus ongoing studies of Magma, we should find ourselves in a very good position to deliver this future combination.

  3. What always amazes me about these things is the lack of thought that goes into the benefits to society that a military training provides. Whether that is providing communications expertise into BT etc. Or just ensuring British values do not totally die out only to be replaced by narcissism and selfishness

    There is a lot to be said for a wide range of our society to have a military input that can have a positive effect on them personally and the wider society

    For me the greatest benefits are those we will see closer to home

    • Pacman27, I don’t know how much interaction you’ve had with servicemen and women but

      “Or just ensuring British values do not totally die out only to be replaced by narcissism and selfishness”

      isn’t my practical experience when I was in, plenty selfish and narcissistic buggers cutting about and whatever the “British values” are they evolve through time anyway. I stopped recommending folk to join up years ago.

      • Unfortunately there are people like that everywhere

        But the military does provide opportunities for people that are often overlooked to turn themselves into something and make a contribution to society. I do think the military is a great vehicle for personal growth and opportunity and is important in providing high quality labour into the uk workforce.

    • Personally I think everyone should be asked to spend some time as a carer. There is nothing like caring for the frail, truly unwell or dying to give you a bit of perspective on what actually matters.

  4. “Britain is a pivotal, but declining, power;”

    One of these days I would like these “experts” to forecast at what point we stop declining.

    We have declined in the 15th and 16th centuries, but then we bounced back. The Angevin Empire, the British Empire, what will come next? Simply assuming that we are endlessly declining and that’s it is a historically illiterate position to take.

    • I think we have stopped declining. The tide has turned. The discovery and reburial of Richard III ignited the rebirth of the highest point of English identity, Plantagenet England. It reminded the English who we are.

      We are now seeing the consequences of this rebirth of English nationalism. Brexit and the Duke of Sussex has decided to make his own life representing himself not his grandmother! The monarchy is changing.

      We will either see NI choose to be united with the South or become independent; like Canada and New Zealand a UK Dominion.
      The SNP want to take Scotland out of the current UK and into the EU. Good luck; the Scots are proud but not stupid.

      My betting is on significant UK constitutional change in the not too distant future.

      China is a country where Muslims are sent for reprogramming and where the authorities burn down Christian churches; and which is currently the largest investor in Africa. India is a country where you are only entitled to citizenship if you are Hindu. In Saudi Arabia I think its still compulsory for males to attend public beheadings. The US is pulling out of the fight against Islamic extremism in sub Saharan Africa while contemplating its democratic navel in the Trump impeachment. Libya is a basket case. South Africa is backsliding from Mandela sunlit uplands into corruption.

      A re-constituted United Kingdom of Scotland and England ( elected House of Lords) has the potential to be a world leader to protect and defend the hard won freedoms of the last 2000 years; freedom of speech, association, worship, democracy, defence of the weak against the strong – using force where necessary. Count your blessings, the UK is a good place to live.

      • @Paul.P, for one thing, NZ, Canada and Australia are not Dominions of the UK. That status was dropped decades ago. Whilst we have HM the Queen as our Head of State and are members of the Commonwealth, we are fully independent. In New Zealand’s case we will most likely become a republic upon the death of HM The Queen. That is the current thinking here at the moment. Undoubtedly Australia and Canada will consider the same. In both Australia’s and NZ’s case we are Asia Pacific nations and that’s where our future lies whether we like it or not.

        We do have a large problem looming on the horizon with China, in fact we have a problem now with it and you are right about the US sliding back into isolationism. Both Russian and China are getting closer and they have mutual dependencies; China wants Russian military technology, especially aero engines and Russian needs Chinese treasure. Both are very adept at acquiring foreign technology and knowledge, especially western, through fair means or foul. That becomes Britains problem as well.

        But of you think that NZ, Australia and Canada will come flying back in under Britains wing quickly, think again because we will be thinking of ourselves first and foremost, especially Australian and NZ after 1941 when Britain couldn’t / wouldn’t help us defend against the Japanese and got really upset about us wanting to bring our troops, airmen and sailors back to defend our countries.

        • @ngatimozart. Thx for the local Pacific knowledge:-)
          My point re NI is that there are options other than unification which confer independence while retainIng a link with the Crown for as long as desired, which they might like to consider.

        • The 1941 situation was the result of an unrealistic forward defence of Malaya and Singapore.
          Once Force Z was sunk and the few remaining ships sunk at the Java Sea along with the overinflated 80,000 man garrison at Singapore taken by Japan, the UK had no option but to retreat and retrench.
          If the UK maintains a Fleet in being it would be able to help deter Chinese and Russian far Eastern adventures but not much more.
          The UK needs to spend 50% more on the RN and at least double up on SSNs which would be the best way of supporting Australia and New Zealand at distance. We need to commission 1 SSN per year from now on in.

    • Geoffrey, I have no idea how old you are but I go back a long way. I have listened to this country being consigned tot he dustbin oh so many times. Just won’t lie down. The factor most people who consider these matters is they frequently fail to notice other peoples and societies also have problems, often fatal. In 1960, Blighty was doomed, the U.S.S.R. riding the waves! No one in 1980 would have predicted the U.S.S.R. would barely last out the decade; or that China would be transformed into a centralised quasi-capitalist economy. You would have been ‘placed in a safe confinement’ I suspect.

  5. Pre 1991 levels?
    I have asked this before many times on different sites without any response
    Firstly in pure cash terms what is the amount we would spend today if we adopted “pre 1991” levels

    Secondly given that we now include CASD and military pensions etc on our 2% spend on defence through what is sometimes called “creative accounting” how much again in pure cash terms what would we be spending on defence if that was reversed

    • Pre-1991 levels were about 4% of GDP.

      The current defence budget is 2%, or £40billion per year. So effectively bringing it up to pre-1991 (Cold War) levels would double it to £80billion.

      Short of a war in which we face an existential threat, that will not happen. Most recommendations are for us to boost to 3%, which would be £60billion. Even that is optimistic.

      I’d be happy with 2.5%, which would be £50billion. Though realistically even a modest increase of £5billion is probably too optimistic.

      Shame, as even £5billion a year extra could double our Type 31 fleet, a couple extra Type 26s or even increase our F35 fleet by a few squadrons.

      • Thanks guys

        I think 60 billion (22/1/2020) is about the correct amount for a nation which is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world and a p5 member and which relies possibly more heavily on a free world trade environment than many other countries

        • I would say so too. Politicians seem to disagree though. They pay lip service but that’s about it. Best defence can realistically hope for is a lm extra billion here and there just to stave off cuts, rather than any serious investment.

  6. I can’t believe “Build a royal yacht to boost Britain’s soft-power presence around the world” is above increased defence spending!

    Does Rifkind attribute the end of the Cold War to the immense soft power of royal sundowners?

  8. When it comes to dated proposals, I can’t think of many more than a Royal Yacht, to be honest… Don’t get me wrong, I think they served their purpose back in the day, and the Royal family certainly have a soft power punch for the UK. But we’re now moving into an era where largesse and overconsumption are deeply frowned upon, not just in left wing circles but everywhere. This is basically at odds with the idea of a “Royal” yacht. This is reinforced by the growing attitude among developing nations that they don’t want to just be “subjects” of western benevolence, but should be seen as valued equals that can bring something to the table. You can see this changing attitude in how universally the younger Royals are generally liked at all levels of society and across cultural boundaries, they embody this attitude far more.
    Added to that the incredibly hectic schedule of senior royals, and the stately (and polluting) pace of a yacht travelling around the globe begins to make even less sense.
    In contrast, building a couple of large RFA ships that can provide a disaster relief/ development assistance/ drugs interdiction/ sea base facility and making senior Royals patrons of them in some capacity would buy in to this new anti-luxury pro-action culture far more. Throw in a few fancy state rooms, and some nice big glossy event spaces (far easier to do on a vessel of this type), and a Royal could indeed host delegations on board. Bearing in mind every member of our senior royal family has served (at least nominally) in the military, I don’t think they’ll mind that their ship is grey rather than shiny, and has some cranes on it. It also serves greater practical uses for British foreign policy when not being used for diplomacy.
    In summary, Yes. I am indeed proposing we make our next “Royal Yacht” the new support ships that have been proposed.

      • Thanks, I don’t want to be seen as anti-Royalist because I’m not. But we have to respect the times we live in, without losing our heritage. Keep the pomp and circumstance of the changing of the gurad and trooping the colour, of course. But the traditional idea of the Royal yacht will probably slipp too close to Russian oligarchs and Saudi sheikhs in most peoples’ imagintation these days.

    • Can I suggest it should be a carbon free Royal Yacht. Flexible to be a medical ship and easily convertible to many other roles. You would get plenty of transatlantic passengers.

    • ‘Royals are generally liked at all levels of society and across cultural boundaries, they embody this attitude far more’

      only because of the soft treatment they receive. When the truth is known ‘St Diana’ – they ain’t quite as popular

      • Well, for sure there can be quite a debate about whether they’re really that amazing or not.
        But they are broadly popular, in large part because they bridge that gap between the amazing life of Royals and holding certain values in common with us “normal” people. That’s a powerful thing to use for UK Plc, rather than alienate the majority of the world by having them sail around the world on a golden boat…

  9. This is actually a really great and really timely report. Many ex-service personnel, quite rightly, talk about matching the funding to the ambition. Now this can only be done if we understand clearly what the challenges we face are and what we may be asked to do. After the Cold War (the so called end of History) it was widely assumed that all countries would cooperate economically through globalisation and politically (& thus militarily as well) through the rules based system (ie the UN). This has been proved not to be the case. Globalisation has created new social stresses due to mobility of labour & capital and the rules based political / military environment is in the process of breaking down due to nation states, not just non-nation state actors flaunting the rules. This is all made worse by the slowly unravelling climate crisis which will continue to produce population mobility and economic challenges. There needs to be a realisation that the world is not the safe place the end of the Cold War suggested it might be.

    Specific threats to the UK are now many and varied. Groups like ISIS will continue to challenge us and sadly take lives but their ‘threat’ to our collective security is small. State actors, primarily Russia, are much more serious and require greater capabilities to face down. We must also consider that the broad ‘Western Alliance’ of the Cold War is now showing signs of competitive strain and that our Allies may longer be as ready to put their men & women on the line for us in times of need so freely. All of this has great ramifications for our future foreign and defence policy. The British government thus need to be really clear as to what our interests are and how to ensure them through our diplomatic and military posture. The upcoming SDSR must be crystal clear on this or we will find ourselves in a position where we are at the mercy of events rather than shaping them.

    Consequently we need the SDSR to clearly identify what our national interest is on the world stage and how to defend it. I would suggest, in order of importance, that we need to:

    1) Uphold the rules based international system. That means fostering alliances with other democracies and making meaningful contributions to military alliances (mainly NATO) designed to counter nation states that challenge this. Now that means primarily the maintenance of the independent nuclear deterrent but also sea, air & land capability which is able to integrate with our allies and bring power to the fight. That means a Navy who can counter submarines to keep our sea supply lines open and a navy that can project power through carrier strike & amphibious forces. That means an Army that can contribute at least one very well equipped armoured division, a power projection air deliverable brigade plus a defence footprint across the country that can be mobilised to provide a much larger force upon notice. That also means an Air Force that can dominate our skies and also project power from UK or allied overseas bases.

    2) Prevent or defeat non-state acts of terror or destabilisation. Again alliances are all important as these groups threaten our friends as much as they do us. Intelligence and shared intelligence are key. Consequently maintenance of intelligence assets, improving our ability to attack and defend in the cyber world and improving our military ability to react with specialist, widely deployable, rapid reaction forces are needed. The last part we are particularly good at; special forces, commandos and paratroopers will continue to be relevant to our protection.

    3) Provide aid to the civil power. This is often the Cinderella of the defence footprint but needs to be discussed. In an increasingly fractured and climate threatened world the Armed Forces will need to be able to mobilise numbers and expertise to help the people who pay for them in time of need. That will mean being able to deliver aid abroad (air & sea assets) as well as increasing the reserve footprint in the UK for flood relief etc.

    These are the challenges and they will not be met by keeping defence spending at 2% of GDP. 3% is much more realistic. Now the country faces many spending challenges and 3% will not be easy to attain but we (all of us subjects) should remind our politicians that the first duty of government is to protect us.

    Oh dear, I’ve written an essay!

  10. ‘Well Golly Gosh!’ As Lt. George might say. I was only recently wondering why Blighty doesn’t order a Britannia Mk II and here comes this recommendation by a very sharp mind in Malcolm Rifkind. Blighty’s projection of soft power is enormously strengthened by these historic and epoch defining symbols. ‘Worth every damned penny!’ – Gen. Melchett.

  11. A very interesting read on the F35 can be found on the Link provided below.

    Interesting to note the problems associated with the communication between legacy aircraft and carrier.

    Hope these have been addressed?

    House of Commons
    Defence Committee
    Unclear for take-off?
    F-35 Procurement
    Second Report of Session 2017–19

    “78. Asked about the MoD’s claim that the project remained on budget, he replied that
    it was, and “has always been”, very unclear what the MoD actually means by “on budget
    [ … ] at no point have they said, “we are spending x on this aircraft and y on retrofitting
    it.

    ”72 At the heart of this question of costs is a fundamental problem, according to Alexi
    Mostrous–that of transparency: “we just don’t know [about the costs and the potential
    overrun]”.73

    79. When he was asked about The Times’s estimates of the cost of an average F-35
    produced this year, once retrofits and upgrades are included, Mr Bronk said £130–155
    million was “probably a fair figure in terms of what you would end up parting with, to get
    a representative squadron, per aircraft of F-35s produced this year, counting the necessary
    spares, consumables, infrastructure, set-up costs and so on”.74
    80. However, he warned that it was “very difficult to know” how many of the costs
    identified in the earlier production lots are “one-off set-up costs, or at least early set-up
    costs, and how many are integral to the jet and what you require to buy it”.75
    Calculating the cost of the F-35

    81. Both Lockheed Martin and the MoD insisted that the programme was within budget.
    However, neither could provide firm costings, pointing instead to the unit recurring
    flyaway (URF) costs of the jets (this is the basic cost of the aircraft, not including any
    country-specific requirements, retrofits, software updates, spares or logistical support). For
    example, Jeff Babione highlighted that this cost has been “going down year over year” and,for an F-35B purchased in Lot 9 (the latest production lot), was $131 million—a reduction of 25% from the first lot from which UK bought planes (Lot 3).76 According to Mr Babionethe unit recurring flyaway costs of the programme to date, for the UK, are:

    Unit flyaway costs for lots where UK has purchased or is due to purchase, F-35s
    Production lot Unit recurring
    flyaway cost
    Number of UK aircraft
    Lot 3 $161 million 2
    Lot 4 $139 million 1
    Lot 7 $137 million 1
    Lot 8 $134 million 4Lot 9 $131 million 6
    Lot 10 (the next Lot to enter production) $122.3 million 3
    Lot 11 TBC 1
    Lot 12 TBC 3
    Lot 13 TBC 6
    Lot 14 TBC 8
    Source: Q95; PRO0001

    The figures, however, do not include the cost of retrofits, add-ons or software upgrades.

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/326/326.pdf

    • Whilst the cost of ownership figures are interesting there are a basic number of planes the the RN and RAF need to achieve their initial objectives. Once this is done the MOD needs to look at the cost of ownership at that point to see if future objectives are affordable compared to alternative options.

  12. Good morning all
    As we can see the race has truly started – think tanks trying to get the ear of the new government, with a former Foreign Secretary to add “weight” to a report.
    Couple of things, the report states nothing new – it’s giving views that are widely accepted but rarely followed though within the “London political bubble”.

    It all comes down to where the UK wants to see itself in the world. If Global Britain as a concept is to be believed then the UK wants remain a world power, influencing events and being at the forefront of trying to make the world a better place.
    To do that you need to employ both soft and hard power – more importantly not be afraid to do it.
    Currently HMG is preparing for another SDSR – reviewing what we want to do and how we are going to do it the world.

    Whilst policy and aspiration is easy to put down on paper, money, will power and the ability to see things through (sometimes making tough decisions) Isn’t.
    Politicians by their nature are aspirational and ambitious, civil servants are cautious and industry are in it for the profit – none of which are bad things.
    Trying to fulfil the aspirations of Government needs all three to work together – a mighty challenge but something I think this government is going to have a very good “crack” at trying to do.
    First and foremost people need to be replaced and changed, we see this already with John Manzoni leaving and will continue to see (I hope) other individuals either leave their posts or be moved on to pastures new – we have had nearly 10 years of activity without really achieving anything – everyone is really busy but not actually doing much.
    Processes need to be streamlined or just removed, blaming a policy document or a process as a reason it to do something should no longer “cuts the ice”.
    Organisations need to be reformed, based on outcome not on tradition, the reorganisation should be based on the requirements of government and not how governments can fit their agenda into departments.
    Technology needs to be embraced, when Dominic CUMMINGS is questioning the worth of the CVF don’t get defensive – show the technological value of what you can do with a 4 acre extension of the UK instead of talking about the number of combat jets it has.
    Technology is one of the UK USP’s – we are the European leaders in tech innovation, let’s spread that message to the world.
    Facilities and infrastructure need to be upgraded and reformed – HS2 is an ideal example of a project gone wrong, a cartel of companies in cahoots with a government department. We need to look at what is needed, hpe by improving facilities and infrastructure in the UK brings in investment which means from a soft power point of view we can better reach out

    From a defence point of view this means radical rethinking of how we generate combat capability to deter aggressors and fulfil the 8 defence tasks as laid down by HMG.

    SDSR 2010 set the UK back by 15 years, The Conservative Government of the time needs to hang it’s head in shame. It took short term financial decisions against long term objectives and we are still lying the price now (training pipelines, recruiting, equipment levels etc.).

    The review needs to recognise that we are not currently “fit to fight” – a difficult thing for any government to do but something that needs to be done so that changes can be made. If everything is okay then no changes are required and we can keep with the status quo.
    Officials need to be held to account (you only have to read the thinpinstripeline to see how officials try and “move” accountability – blaming others or explaining how difficult and complex things are).
    SRO’s need to own the end to end cycle of bringing a system to service. I am sure that some of the systems that are running very late had at one time SRO’s who now occupy 3/4 star positions within defence or are now high ranking staff in defence companies. This needs to be corrected.

    Royal yachts, more frigates and destroyers etc are all good and aspirational – we need to work out why we need them and whether defence and industry are actually up for delivering them

  13. It’s ironic that we are the only government in the world which still operates and flies biplanes, the weapons of Taranto which heralded the end of the battleship. Here we are years after the Falklands with another Tory and another air defence crisis in hand.

    “Shields Up” for drone swarms is not there yet. We couldn’t stop a drone at Gatwick. The fact that generals fought previous wars and shareholders dictate what toys you play with, are just two of the issues that led to the battleship losing at Taranto, Pearl Harbour and in the waters of San Carlos and the Falklands.

    Trident was designed before hacking, satellites, iphone, GPS, naval drone swarms. Even the aerial weapons you discuss are obselete, yet we plough on, build and maintain technology, just as we did with battleships.

    Now that we’re leaving the EU, why not take a leaf out of Norway'[s book.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here