From the Lexington Institute.
The slow erosion of British military power, like the proverbial canary in the coal mine, is an important lesson for national leaders in this country. Once a mighty empire with fleets deployed in many oceans and an Army on which the sun never set, Britain is now reduced to a middling power that is unable to operate even close to the boundaries of Europe without substantial support from its allies. Whether it is maintaining a naval aviation arm, deploying a fifth generation tactical fighter force or sustaining a nuclear deterrent, Britain is dependent on that special relationship with the United States. The situation is likely to get worse as the military faces not only near term budget cuts of eight percent but the need to close a $60 billion gap between projected costs and planned funding over the next decade.Read the whole thing but that short paragraph should chill the bones of every fan of the British military and should shock and dismay the citizens of the UK.
A middling power and unless changes are made then it will surely become a minor one. Already the defense establishment of Europe is turning away from the UK. The Germans, Poles and French recently formed a Euro-Brigade with the Poles forming the bulk of the combat forces, the Germans providing logistical support and the French providing medical help.
From reading the press release its apparent that the Brits weren't even consulted.
Once a force in European military affairs, it now finds itself torn between maintaining a "special" relationship with the US, developing a cooperative defense force with the French and looming irrelevancy.
The UK's military is in a hurt locker.
I think it's a two fold problem. Part of it is that this had to happen. Britain is too small, in population and GDP, to be more than a shadow of what they once were.
ReplyDeleteThe other is what failure to have clear missions and good procurement processes that support those scenarios. Part of this would be deciding what they feel they need to be able to do on their own and what they have to sacrifice in other areas to get it.
Instead the UK just clung to what they used to do 'back in the day' in progressively more limited versions, which is a terrible way to manage down sizing. I believe the US is making the same mistakes now as program after program is modeled on "that's the way we did it in the '50s" when that hasn't been appropriate for over 30 years.
i think the difference is that the US still has a strong industrial base.
ReplyDeletethe UK has lost what it once had...thats really no big deal but when you add the destruction that always comes down the pike with these darn white papers that absolutely wreck your military then i think the cause for concern is real.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei could agree with you Keith except for one thing. despite all the high costs of weapons development, the biggest cost driver for the US military is personnel and their dependents.
ReplyDeletethe US Navy just announced plans for its reduction in force and the other branches are sure to follow. you want to get a 400 billion dollar savings overnight? cut about 250,000 servicemen from the rolls.
we'll have money to remain a high tech force and the only thing we'll have to worry about isn't our military which will remain strong but our economy which is failing.
I'd say the US is even at a much higher risk, we can rest on our laurels militarily maybe for a decade or two, but it seems to me our procurement process is in serious need of re-tooling. Airborne Laser scrapped, V-22 got by it's chinny chin-chin, EFV gone, F-22 cut by half, F-35 delayed delayed delayed, Army FCS scrapped, the newest Navy's LCS rusting away as we speak, and the one that bugs me the most- US missile components manufactured in China, really!!! I could on...
ReplyDeleteObviously, the 4 branches, including the USCG should have joint procurement if they want, but where is the quality control, where is the timeline, where is the strategic focus on our military's future and needs. It's like we're hacking it as we go, maybe we are, because we're preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan??? I can only hope that Panetta brings as much clarity as Gates did...
As far as the UK, I think militarily they need to work more closely with the European Union, security needs and budgets are changing, we'll always have close ties with them. Militarily though, we view power projection differently than they do, and they're waiting on us for a lot of their future weapons systems. I'm sure they're just as frustrated with us, but the military ball is literally in our court, it's up to us to get these systems done, tested, and combat ready. Nothing wrong with being on time and on budget, especially when it's regarding our security.
I agree, personnel is what keeps the military going. Personally, I think we should have a 1% rule, (1% of the US population.) Make the military more appealing, a better GI Bill for college, discounted mortgages for military families, better counseling and medical, especially for the Vets. We've always been about quality and made in the USA, I guess I'm a little frustrated with all the cuts, when it should be - brass tacks, get it done!
ReplyDeleteagain i agree but what has me curious is how we're about to bust up our unemployment rate.
ReplyDeleteby December with all these servicemembers being let go it could be well over 13 percent.
thats high.