Friday, April 01, 2011

UK's Decline as a World and European Power is complete.

Think Defence has a remarkable story regarding the contribution of their force to the mission in Libya.  He proclaims half way through ....
Lets get a few things straight before the doom mongers start doing down the UK’s contribution.
He makes some rather fanciful (in my opinion) claims to refute the thought that I and others have.  They've cut too deep and are no longer a major player.  Read the whole thing but here's my attempt to rebut his claims.
Whilst Libya has been hogging the newspaper columns let’s not forget the scale of contribution to Afghanistan, anti piracy operations, the Falkland Islands and plenty of other deployments.
The Libya deployments have been in addition to these.
Sorry Think Defence but the other European Powers have commitments as far ranging as the UK's.  The UK has stood strong in Iraq and Afghanistan but this offensive against Libya is straining their resources in a way that is almost comical (if it were an enemy nation).  To see a trusted friend and ally suffering under the weight of this limited combat is most depressing.
Of course the main news point has been about a lack of carriers and Harriers, especially when compared to the French and Italians but instead of concentrating on what we haven’t got, how about a look at what we have, then compare that with the French and Italians.
Submarine launched Tomahawk, ASTOR/Sentinel, RAPTOR, significant tanker, intelligence and command and control support.
This in addition to combat air patrols and strike missions, whilst Afghanistan and other operations haven’t skipped a beat.
Again, Think Defence is off the mark.  One or two Tomahawk launches is hardly credible.  Compared to the number of sorties that the French launched with their Rafales, its somewhat paltry.  Add the fact that the French were making raids before the first Tomahawk was launched and not only must the Rafale be re-examined (it might be a better war plane than I thought) but the lack of having Harrier based strike being retired should be considered a HUGE mistake. Command and Control was accomplished with US and NATO E-3's.  The Sentinel is due to be retired shortly so its capabilities will soon vanish...and NIMRODS are going away soon.  The hallmarks of the UK's unique contribution will soon  be high demand assets with far too few of them to maintain any capability beyond that of a brush war.

The UK has in essence placed it expeditionary war fighting capability in the hands of the RAF...and the RAF is not up to the task!  If combat had occurred outside of the range of bases in Southern Europe then the UK would be sitting on the sidelines.

If I didn't know better I would think that UK strategy is to mirror Germany's by not fighting.  The UK is in essence removing itself from the stage.  Major foreign interventions will be impossible for at least a decade...probably two.

Politicians have been warning that their is a protectionist/isolationist movement in the United States that was dangerous and nonsensical.  Someone should warn the British government of the same.

6 comments :

  1. Ironically, Britain is the only 'empire' in history that managed to rise up from decline, twice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Might the Queen ever step in (if even behind the scenes) on the current situation?

    ReplyDelete
  3. and it might yet again. but this decline seems particularly sharp. at the same time it appears that the French are pushing to become the military powerhouse of Europe while Germany is set to become the economic power.

    the UK has always acted as a counterweight to both countries and as a bridge between Europe and the US. i think that bridge (due to supporting us in two wars and the economic situation) might be eroding.

    ReplyDelete
  4. leesea, i don't know if she has that kind of power.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Suffice it to say I disagree and agree!

    The UK has definately shrunk its capabilities, successive so called reviews have been excuses for budget cuts with resultant shrinkage in scale and depth but the point of the article was to say to the doom mongers, like you it would seem, that whilst we have a natural urge to denigrate what we have, the reality is pretty different.

    The range of capabilities we have provided to the operation is still pretty impressive, SIGINT and COMINT with the Nimrod R1, real time ground scanning radar coverage with Sentinel, E3 AWACS, sub launched Tomahawk, air launched Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Paveway IV, a couple of frigates/destroyers and a range of supporting logistics assets, not forgetting the staff work in NATO etc.

    Soem of these are unique and the quality in comparison with the other nations is pretty high.

    This is on top on enduring operations at a tempo that puts others in the shade, yes other nations have commitments but lets not be fooling ourselves about them

    Lets not confuse sortie numbers or aircraft with actual effect delivered, yes the French might be contributing with loads of Falklands era Super Etendard's and the brand new Rafale but what are they doing?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Would also add to that list of what the UK has but others don't, RAPTOR a recce sensor that uses the same DB110 as in the U2, a superb asset.

    Again, sortie rate is the wrong measure, flexibility and delivered effect is what we should be looking at

    As for the Rafale carrying out an operation before the destruction of air defences had commenced lets get a couple of things straight here, it was showboating pure and simple and crucially, carried out far East where there were no effective air defences.

    Publicity stunt

    On your point about independence, yes, you are right and since the 1998 Strategic Defence review we have recognised the reality that the majority of operations, beyond a small/medium scale will be in a coalition with others.

    France realises that it can't be a military powerhouse of anything, it can't afford. Which is why they are so keen on joint capabilities and asset sharing. The French armed forces are well equipped in some places but woeful in others, there industrial approach has meant overly expensive kit that is not always very good, have a lot of personnel they pay very poorly and in essence, are where the UK was a couple of decades ago.

    As for Italy and the Netherlands having more credible expeditionary capabilities, don't agree with you on that either :)

    Strategic and economic reality is a real killer, the nations of Europe, even the heavy hitters like the UK and France, are realising the true cost of maintaining professional and well resourced armed forces

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.