Cameron's first war?

Interesting that we already have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who we are trying to extricate and yet here we are again threatening more military action.And why is it that we only tend to hear of the UK and the USA leading efforts to deal with these matters? Don't the rest of the world have any initiative? Strange that there do not seem to be any Middle Eastern countries coming forward putting their troops into the fray.

"We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people." An interesting doctrine which presumably Cameron would include other atrocious regimes like Zimbabwe. We do seem to have tolerated selling weapons of personal destruction to these people. Every PM should have a hobby and most seem to choose war instead of say, gardening. Why wreak havoc on Japanese knot weed when you can indulge in a bit regime change.

David Cameron has said ""We do not in any way rule out the use of military assets. We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people."

Funny how for years British governments are only interested in protecting people from brutal regimes when their country also happens to have oil. Odd that.

Expect U-Turns on some of the Defence spending cuts, Aircraft Carriers are essential in this part of the world,
with instability spreading like wildfire, it seems it was the wrong time to reduce capability.
Funny how Blair can justify the Iraq invasion, and then be shaking hands with Gaddafi a year later, I'm sue he'd have some suspect excuse but he looks like a very bad judge of character from here.

Strewth, school hols over already? How time flies.

Darn good nowt much of note happened worth discussing these last few weeks.

Government is in a pickle with all this 'things going bang' lark, abroad and how we at home deal with it.

Best to ignore Mr. Alexander's outings on the subject as they didn't really end well.

Especially for all media who jumped on that bandwagon. Most have 'moved on' well.

'Clearly, this may be little more than sabre-rattling by a prime minister determined to look on the front foot this week after being on the back one for much of last week.'

Still it seems that all is not lost and some reporters are doing the darndest to help the locals stop our boys getting in and out without a fight.

Better for ratings all round. If ever I am stuck in a bad place hoping for rescue, I might be wishing some media don't take an interest.

Unless down a mine in Chile.

And how are we going to find the money for this one Dave; where’s your Austerity now?
Perhaps you could tack it onto the Foreign Aid Budget that looks likely to increase by 1/3 under the ConDem Government while our own services are cut by up to 20%.

Strange; he sounds more like Blair every day.

https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100078039/pathetic-labour-mps-accuse-william-hague-of-complicity-in-libyan-murders/

Those Newsnight 'Critics are saying' headlines near write themselves, don't they?

Nick Robinson.

Mr Cameron states: "We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people."

empty words. I fear that large-scale social unrest in the UK for example, brought on perhaps by the disasterous policies of a ConDem(n) government, would be put down forcefully too.
ordinary people and their lives simply don't feature in these career politicians agendas.

It's interesting David Cemron talking about "using military assets" in Libya. The same man that's cutting down on military capability, talking up war.

Personally, I think the UK should interven in this crisis, we can help with humanitarian help but not military intervention. For goodness sake, don't these people think about the family of the people they send to these parochial wars? He stand up every PMQs calling names of falling heroes, does he not for once think these people have brothwers, sister, uncles, sons, daughter, husband and wives?

You only know the start opf war, you don't know when and how it will end..so no military intervention!

By the way, I found it so hypocritical and double standard, although rightly, that the so called "international community" through UN were able to get unanimous vote on the resolution and sanction against Libya for its "use of force" but never gets unianimous votes against Israel on the disproportional use of force and the thousands of Palestinians killed in the last conflict. On the BBC recently, Israel shot palestinian children on the bother of the illegal settlement with remote bullets. Why is no one passing and enforcing UN resolutions against sanctions against Israel for its atrocious activities?

By the way, why Libya and why not Zimbabwe? (I don't think military intervention is necessary in both cases anyway. Just asking!)

What constitutes a "regime using military forces against its own people"?

We are back in the territory of if its OK for Libya then why not a long list of other countries?

Despite my political misgivings about Cameron, I sincerely think (and hope) that he will take any decision down this route with immense care.

After Iraq the only possible justifiable way to do this is surely through the UN Security Council - that in itself would even more surely make such an outcome very very unlikely.

This week Libya, next week Zimbabwe, the week after China (re Tibet)??? of course, it's mostly verbiage. Why can't we say - we're going to press for whatever action seems suitable at the UN & will abide by UN decisions?

One thing we do not need and the Libyans will not thank us for is another war. It is not down to us to rid them of Gadaffi and certainly should not be done without a UN resolution, which they will not give.

Well if we do need to use the "military Option" at least we have the Harriers which are ideal for that particular theatre...Doh

Nice one Wooster.

"We do not in any way rule out the use of military assets.

Perhaps the 'millitary assets' are the ones 'donated' to Libya by Luddie Bliar and his gang of Bravehearts.

Like it or not we, Britain, may owe the Libyan people a duty of care for New Labour's disastrous courtship with Gaddaffi including arming the despotic tyrant with British or British sourced weapons and know-how and training on how to apply them.

There are many ways of reading David Cameron's statement ... if Britain and its allies stand off and do nothing ... the Bravehearts' chum will retaliate against his own people with a wave of terror.

Reluctantly, I think that David Cameron is saying and doing the right things here ... so long as he does not over-commit UK forces and ensures that other countries pull their weight in containing Gaddafi's end game... and the necessary UN resolutions are obtained under clear legal guidance. This isn't Iraq under Saddam Hussein ... Libya under Gaddafi is very weak in comparison ... but Gaddafi poses a major threat, internally, to Libyan people.

Our disproportionate military spending (even after the cuts) permits us to "punch above our weight", I believe the phrase was. I suspect it is sabre rattling and trying to appear important.
Does the call for Gaddafi to go specify Venezuela, to make William Hague look slightly less stupid?

ous 4. At 6:33pm on 28 Feb 2011, Endgames wrote:
"Expect U-Turns on some of the Defence spending cuts, Aircraft Carriers are essential in this part of the world"

Mothballing of the Ark and Harriers was a strategic mistake as the military privately admit.The captain first heard it on the news.

Without a platform for fighters and helicopters, we have to get permission from Malta or Cyprus to fly out.

They have axed a 100 pilots weeks from qualifying.They cost an arm and a leg to train,can`t now complete and join the auxiliary because technology on advanced fighters is continuously upgraded,and single seater combat specialists have to keep close to the cockpit.

Last week was ignominuous,Mr Cameron was hawking military hardware to rulers in the gulf whose subjects were calling for their heads outside the tent.Mr.Clegg off skiing didn`t know he was meant to be in charge as the crisis threatening British subjects in Libya unfolded, "Venezuala" Hague was off with the fairies along with half the foreign office as they rushed around with a leaking oil can trying to make a dodgy commercial hire plane serviceable while military transports waited for orders.

And they may now take us to war!

re #3
Except Sudan, of course. {But that was Blair.}

But is there any mileage for Dave in saying "We'll let the Germans, French and Italians take care of this one."? The press would slay him, especially after last week. I hope he was just grandstanding, because I'm not sure we have any spare assets, military or otherwise.

"so long as he does not over-commit UK forces and ensures that other countries pull their weight in containing Gaddafi's end game..."

Other countries pull their weight while Ark Royal and Illustrious with their Harriers swiftly deal with that Gaddaffi chap. You are funny! I'm sure the UN and the Libyan people can manage with or without Rule Brittania's help.

Time for South Africa or South America to play their full part on the world stage.

South Africa could show some Africa wide leadership and clout on this one.

18. At 9:18pm on 28 Feb 2011, DH Wilko wrote:


"so long as he does not over-commit UK forces and ensures that other countries pull their weight in containing Gaddafi's end game..."

Other countries pull their weight while Ark Royal and Illustrious with their Harriers swiftly deal with that Gaddaffi chap. You are funny! I'm sure the UN and the Libyan people can manage with or without Rule Brittania's help.

................

Well you are hilarious ... because David Cameron is probably the most prominent here of those leaders on the UN security council... and the Libyan people are repeatedly asking for help and so far no one has stepped up to the plate to start trying to organise offering anything like the enforcement of real humanitarian focussed assistance, besides David Cameron.

Ha Ha Ha ... try and get your facts right!

Come of it, the Uk's/EU's not going to get involved in any military intervention in Libya, even if we weren't all bankrupt and did have the military resources to do it (which we haven't) it would still be a dumb move. Isn't Italy the old colonial power this time?

The Strategic Defence Review is dead - the ships being used for the evacuation were on their way home to be scrapped - the RAF/Special forces units were supported by aircraft also due to be scrapped or redeployed within weeks.

The cuts in Army manpower proposed would stop the UK mounting any sort of out of area new operations in the Middle East and with a large ground and air force still in Afghanistan, what assets we have are already spread too thin.

Without their own naval/RAF air cover, UK forces cannot be safely deployed on the ground - they would have to rely on US, Israeli, Italian or arab airforces, without Sea Harriers and their carriers. Scrapping the Tornado and Harrier squadrons would leave the RAF too thinly spread to cope with a major conflict or to provide close air support to ground forces.

Look at the strategic position - Egypt could tear up its truce with the Israelis - islamic fundamentalists could take control of Algeria - civil war could rage in Libya - then there's our Gulf allies in Bharain - Oman - and the hotspots in Yemen. All are perfect melting pots for Osama Bin Ladens' allies.

And sitting in the background is Iran and their allies like Hamas & Hisbollah - whilst the political leadership in Pakistan - holders of the "Islamic Bomb" - remain shaky.

Oil & gas exports to Europe are in danger - whilst demand for energy soars in the far east.

But we have been here before - in 1979 the last incoming Tory government made sweeping defence cuts - selling off aircraft carriers and running down the out-of-area capability. Then Galtieri invaded the Falkands - HMS Hermes the strike carrier had been sold to the indians, but had not been delivered. If Galtieri had waited a couple more months, the Falkands War would have been impossible without effective air cover. The minister for the Royal Navy, Keith Speed resigned over the level of cuts.

I would argue that there must be a rapid re-evaluation of the strategic situation, that the withdrawal of theHarrier force and its carriers should be recinded and that cuts in Army manpower should be reversed.

We will need all our suface ships, so the scrapping of T22/23 frigates should be put on hold until all the new T45 destroyers are available.

A full carrier battlegroup with the two assault ships, helicopter carrier and a full complement of Royal Marines are support units should be deployed into the Med ASAP, in cooperation with French and US forces.

The idea is NOT to start a war - the idea is to be able to intervene to prevent liberal revolutions being hijacked by radical nationalist or fundamentalist groups, as well as to provide humanitarian support.

As we found in Bosnia, no fly zones are not enough - only infantry can take and hold ground - and it's always been that way.

20
"..and so far no one has stepped up to the plate to start trying to organise offering anything like the enforcement of real humanitarian focussed assistance, besides David Cameron."

The British government is taking action to rescue its own citizens just like the US and other European countries. Cameron is discussing a no fly zone with Nicolas Sarkozy of France and other European leaders. I doubt he's asking to borrow an aircraft carrier and some planes, as that would be ridiculous. Gadaffi would probably die laughing if that was true. So I think other countries would be involved.

richard bunning #22.

"The idea is NOT to start a war - the idea is to be able to intervene to prevent liberal revolutions being hijacked.."

{shakes head} the irony of it.

hey, we're ok when you revolt against your leaders, but if your revolution doesn't work out the way we would like, we will intervene...

RB 22:

Endorse part 1 on defence capability,although the Harrier is a better and cheaper aircraft than the Typhoon which military friends tell me is underpowered and doesn`t handle as well.In addition it needs an airfield,can`t use existing carriers.

Second part of your post more speculative,but not more so than Western government`s plotting their future policy.None of the of the regimes has yet changed,only their leaders.

This is because the internal opposition has been denied the opportunity to develop political organs to exercise power.

With existing regimes still in place in Egypt,Tunisia,Yemen,Algeria and Libya,a democratic future for the region is far from assured.Mr.Cameron needs to tone down his rhetoric on this issue until it becomes clear which way the wind is blowing.He is there to pursue our national interest,not to join bandwagons

DH Wilko #23.

"The British government is taking action to rescue its own citizens just like the US and other European countries."

seems they're already doing a lot more than just that:

"The United States, Britain and France have sent several hundred “defence advisors” to train and support the anti-Gadhafi forces in oil-rich Eastern Libya.."

There is a big difference in waging a war or invading a country, and enforcing a peace-keeing 'no fly' zone to protect innocent civilians from a blood thirsty dictator who would happily slaughter his own people in order to say in power.

However, whatever Cameron says, it is unlikely the UN will give approval for military intervention because of vetoes from regimes such as Russia and China - showing yet again that the UN has no moral authority.

It's also unclear what Britain could do. Perhaps we could send one of our new aircraft carriers with no aircraft?

The real question is why has the World (East and West) been so keen to cosy up to Gaddafi for so many years? Answers on a postcard please....

I do find this very strange that a oil rich country goes into free fall and its dictator is attacking his own people and the US have a aircraft carrier and miltary at the ready.

When you look at the situation in other African countries where dictators have been killing people in the thousands but that country has no oil. The most is done is sanctions given by the UN

Strange that dont you think

Good Morning Nick,

the reason why the international community are going to have to take some sort of action is because of the flow of humanity attempting, and in many cases succeeding, in leaving all these countries involved in the so called 'Arab Spring'.

When Tunisia collapsed then Italy was suddenly faced with massive problems of young men fleeing. It is not that we really care about any of these unfortunate oppressed people, it is just that 'we' want to keep them where they are.

I have feared for some time that the failing politicians will do something really stupid, like they did in August 1914, when they became involved in something which grew into the Great Euopean Civil War of 1914-1945. There are serious implications for what is happening, there is a new bellicosity around, the wild west of the rule of the gun is becoming more prevalent.

Surely with the availability of drones it is quite easy for the west to target Gaddafi, just as we seem to do in Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We are told constantly that we have this capability, yet we don't seem to use it. There is the smell of cordite in the air, because if Libya falls, then how long before Saudi Arabia crumbles under the weight of the 'Arab Spring'.

23. At 10:46pm on 28 Feb 2011, DH Wilko wrote:

20
"..and so far no one has stepped up to the plate to start trying to organise offering anything like the enforcement of real humanitarian focussed assistance, besides David Cameron."

The British government is taking action to rescue its own citizens just like the US and other European countries. Cameron is discussing a no fly zone with Nicolas Sarkozy of France and other European leaders. I doubt he's asking to borrow an aircraft carrier and some planes, as that would be ridiculous. Gadaffi would probably die laughing if that was true. So I think other countries would be involved.

........................

David Cameron is discussing a no fly zone because there are reports of Libyan aircraft bombing its own citizens ... perhaps you approve of Gaddaffi's non-humanitarian crimes ... are you the Colonel himself?

He could send an aircraft carrier.

Oops!



It's a great time to laugh at the tories.

31. At 08:09am on 01 Mar 2011, jon112dk wrote:

He could send an aircraft carrier.

Oops!

It's a great time to laugh at the tories.

....................

No need for an aircraft carrier ... there are plenty of air bases within aircraft range in the Med ... so please don't write rubbish ... as trying to score cheap political points - this is a very difficult situation for those whose lives are at risk including NATO aircrews etc potentially

I think that it's irrelevant which political persuasion you are - each of these decisions is very personal and can't be second-guessed. It's easy to look at Rwanda or Srebrenica to see the consequences of doing nothing and taking the simple option, but it's down to each leader's and British person's own conscience. I have never condemned Tony Blair for deciding to go into Iraq because it really isn't that clear-cut.

Fairly accurate summary Nick, all things said and done. It strikes me as odd that Cam should open this up to the floor without any kind of lead from the UN or NATO, or even Cathy Ashton's lot down the road in Brussels.

Britain certainly does not have the assets, let alone the political mandate to perform such an action unilaterally. Not any more. We could contribute assets like an AWACS or two to a Joint operation being run by either the EU, NATO or the UN, but that would be about it. Theres not enough Typhoons in service yet to run a NFZ.

More importantly, the Libyan opposition groups were on record last week saying they dont want outside assistance, they're going to get rid of Ghadaffi themselves; he's losing control of the army, the rebels have managed to get hold of anti aircraft artillery from units that have defected from Ghadaffi's control; I dont think he has enough of a military left outside of his shrinking enclave, particularly enough of an air force to warrant such an action.

We heard reports last week of pilots being ordered to bomb and strafe civilians, but no reports of those orders being obeyed by Libyan Air Force personnel - 2 Mirage F1's defected to Malta and another Sukhoi crew ejected over rebel held territory rather than carry the order out - so who's benefit is the no fly zone for? There are not the parallels with the NFZ's in Iraq after Gulf War 1.

Getting involved militarily in Libya is a bad idea. Its not wanted by the Libyan rebels, by Ghadaffi himself - considering how he was meant to be have been brought back in from the cold, its funny how all his new found "mates" in the west can turn on him so quickly, isnt it - and certainly not by the British military. There is no co-ordinated international effort to do anything beyond extracting the oil workers, which the RAF did very very well, given the situation.

And considering how the Islamist parties and organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-Ut-Tarihr have been sidelined by the people who have overthrown the regimes, the last thing the west should be doing now is giving grist to their mill by interfering in the "revolution"... any regime that succeeds either Ghadaffi or Mubarak absolutely must not be able to be painted by the Islamists as a western "puppet" regime - the people must do it for themselves. Flying western military aircraft around a large area with no Air Sea Rescue capability, with foreign mercenaries with itchy trigger fingers, with rebels who have got hold of anti aircraft weaponry but who are incapable of distinguishing between a British Typhoon or Tornado and a Libyan Mig, Sukhoi or Tupolev - its a potential disaster waiting to happen.

Stay the hell out of it.

So, what on earth is Cameron playing at? Unless, this is a coded message to Oman. If anything, THATS where Cameron should be worried about, as the FT pointed out yesterday. Oman is still an absolute monarchy and given its position in the oil world, not to mention the very close military ties between the UK and Oman that go back many decades, I would say there is more for him to concern himself about in the Persian Gulf than in Libya.

He should quit showboating over Ghadaffi, give the ministers who are not exactly shining in their departments (Hague, Fox, etc) a kick up the pants (or fire them), stop being the same type of control freak that Brown was and get a grip on what matters.

#31 jon112dk

Is it worth my pointing out that the previous government made poor deals to build ships in Gordon Brown's constituency whilst taking the easy way out by assuming that we could have all military options, rather than conducting a comprehensive defence review? Of course bankrupting the country probably didn't help with the defence of the realm either and led to short-term decisions being taken.

22. At 10:40pm on 28 Feb 2011, richard bunning wrote:

The Strategic Defence Review is dead - the ships being used for the evacuation were on their way home to be scrapped - the RAF/Special forces units were supported by aircraft also due to be scrapped or redeployed within weeks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially, yes. It does beggar belief that those who were charged with the responsibility of defence planning as to how the world would shape up over the period of the SDSR could not have seen even the teensiest hint of this type of thing coming or even prepared/accounted in any way shape or form for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The cuts in Army manpower proposed would stop the UK mounting any sort of out of area new operations in the Middle East and with a large ground and air force still in Afghanistan, what assets we have are already spread too thin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Definately. One of the questions that SDSR should really have asked is what kind of forces do we want/need and what do we want them to do? To a degree this question was asked in 1998 when Labour conducted their SDR and the question was answered - expeditionary forces in support of the er, "Ethical" foreign policy. Problem was, Brown didnt quite fund it properly. But, thats by the by, at least the question was asked and answered. Thats not what we've seen this time round. I would venture the public would be more happy for the UK not to get involved in interventions in the middle east, considering what has happened in Iraq and Afghan and would prefer us to adopt a more self-defensive posture whilst maintaining our NATO commitments in Europe. Given the scale of the defence cuts that have come in PR09 and 10 and likely to come in PR11 and PR12, it seems that the question has been answered without being asked by SDSR and that what we will have left will not be capable of supporting these types of operations in future, especially in parallel with another Out Of Area Operation already underway in Afghanistan. Personally, I approve of that, but not how we got there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without their own naval/RAF air cover, UK forces cannot be safely deployed on the ground - they would have to rely on US, Israeli, Italian or arab airforces, without Sea Harriers and their carriers. Scrapping the Tornado and Harrier squadrons would leave the RAF too thinly spread to cope with a major conflict or to provide close air support to ground forces.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it was carried out by UAV's (and there isnt enough of them and it is not an autonomous capability, it is dependent on US satellite comms infrastructure), that is absolutely correct. Kind of makes the decision to retire SENTINEL a bit short sighted as well, methinks. Not to mention the pressure it is putting on the Hercules fleet, who whilst they are carrying out these extraction tasks in the desert cannot be supporting ops in Afghan, where they are meant to be...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the strategic position - Egypt could tear up its truce with the Israelis - islamic fundamentalists could take control of Algeria - civil war could rage in Libya - then there's our Gulf allies in Bharain - Oman - and the hotspots in Yemen. All are perfect melting pots for Osama Bin Ladens' allies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially yes. But, if you look a lot closer at the reports coming out of the middle east, the Islamists are not gaining a foothold and have not been able to exploit the situation for their own gain. Why? Because the people dont want them. AQ dont really have the financing any more, are too widely dispersed. In addition to that, the catalyst for all of this action isnt religious - its not the Sunni/Shia conflict, its not related to Israel - Egypt has, so far still maintained its accords with Tel Aviv - its been driven by much simpler matters - jobs, health, education, prosperity - things that AQ, Hamas, HizbAllah, the Muslim Brotherhood et al - have no plan for, they have no answer to these demands. Only local (previously suppressed) opposition groups understand these factors. Granted, the others could try and exploit it, but they havent got far so far. Demonstrations that took place in London last week at the Libyan and Egyptian embassies reported the presence of Hizb-Ut-Tahrir trying to hijack the demos for their own ends, reportedly being shooed off quite robustly by the "non-aligned" demonstrators - they dont want them involved. They can see that all that will bring is more trouble. I found an article discussing it late last week, I'll see if I can post a reference to it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And sitting in the background is Iran and their allies like Hamas & Hisbollah - whilst the political leadership in Pakistan - holders of the "Islamic Bomb" - remain shaky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran is likely to have its own domestic opposition to worry about; HizbAllah would be well advised not to start anything against a very twitchy Israel at the moment. Not saying its impossible, but it would be very very unwise to stick their necks out, particularly if the regime supporting them comes under pressure in Tehran. If the Arab Spring becomes a Persian one...
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil & gas exports to Europe are in danger - whilst demand for energy soars in the far east.
------------------------------------------------------------------
They're not in immediate danger YET. There is not the threat to either output, transportation, etc as there was in the 1980s when Iran was attacking Tankers in the Straits Of Hormuz - what you're seeing at the moment is speculators profiteering and driving the price up by creating alarm. So far, OPEC have been as quiet as mice. Thats not to say that there ISNT a threat - of course, there is - but it is not in the interests of any of the governments in the middle east who are changing to cut off the one thing that gives them the wealth that they want to see shared around their people. That would be particularly dumb and I dont think they are that stupid. It may serve as a very timely reminder to the west that they should think about alternative sources of fuel, the electric car, etc, buying oil from Russia instead, hydrogen cell technology, increasing levels of strategic storage of carbon based fuels in the meantime - but its hardly a "standing on the brink of the abyss" moment. Not yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
But we have been here before - in 1979 the last incoming Tory government made sweeping defence cuts - selling off aircraft carriers and running down the out-of-area capability. Then Galtieri invaded the Falkands - HMS Hermes the strike carrier had been sold to the indians, but had not been delivered. If Galtieri had waited a couple more months, the Falkands War would have been impossible without effective air cover. The minister for the Royal Navy, Keith Speed resigned over the level of cuts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. All true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that there must be a rapid re-evaluation of the strategic situation, that the withdrawal of theHarrier force and its carriers should be recinded and that cuts in Army manpower should be reversed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
But, it depends on what you want the forces to do. If you want them to retain this interventionist stance, then yes, there is a case to be made. If not, you have to ask yourself can you afford to keep them when you're not going to intervene, whilst libraries are shutting and one-legged-LGBT outreach street soccer workers are being laid off by councils and so on. Its not just as simple as dont cut at all. You have to ask yourself what you want your forces to do, what capabilities are required, what technologies and personnel do they have and is existing kit to deliver that capability the most effective and cost effective way of doing it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We will need all our suface ships, so the scrapping of T22/23 frigates should be put on hold until all the new T45 destroyers are available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats going to be another 2 or 3 years at least. PAAMS doesnt quite work yet either on the T45's. They're too big. They've had too many faults in work-up trials and I dont think I'd be in any hurry to stick one in harms way just yet, until I could be convinced it could defend itself. The T45's certainly dont offer any offensive capability, they're just Area Air Defence Destroyers, DDG's. Big ones, but just DDG's...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A full carrier battlegroup with the two assault ships, helicopter carrier and a full complement of Royal Marines are support units should be deployed into the Med ASAP, in cooperation with French and US forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean a British CBG? Or a NATO/UN/EU CBG made up of common assets? Because we havent got the assets to put together a CBG. Albion has just come out of refit, Illustrious is in refit, Ark has been binned, not quite sure where HMS Ocean is... we havent got the assets to do it ourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea is NOT to start a war - the idea is to be able to intervene to prevent liberal revolutions being hijacked by radical nationalist or fundamentalist groups, as well as to provide humanitarian support.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The best way for us not to start a war is not to get involved. Its not up to us what direction these states should take. I'd have thought the rise of Hamas when they toppled the PLO government in Gaza was a lesson learned on that front. Part of the problem that has led to this situation is western friendly oppressive leaderships that have been painted by the Islamists as "puppet regimes". You're just falling into the same trap again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As we found in Bosnia, no fly zones are not enough - only infantry can take and hold ground - and it's always been that way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. But this is not Bosnia. You dont have several opposing religious factions slaughtering each other. These are local insurrections, not ethnic cleansing based on centuries of emnity and hatred. Not comparing like with like. The solution for one does not automatically fit the other.

I wonder if he's even contemplated talking to the newly-formed opposition? It seems as though they are in the majority, they greatly outweigh Gadaffi's followers and are capable of suppressing Gadaffi's dwindling military. They should be helped with forming a new government.

#34: wholeheartedly, well and truly agree

This is a nonsense of an article.

The BBCC muck raking about a potential war.

Libya blew up a 747, flattened a Scottish village and labour released the man convicted of it. Now he's saying Gadaffi odered the bombing of the plane and you accuse David Cameron of being against 'Liberal interventionism' ... in what way would any action we took be 'liberal interventionism'???? Standards of journalism on the BBCC are really plummeting.

This dictator recently ordered the bombing of his own people. The idiot British nationals who had decided to go work in this unstable regime then had to be evacuated at our expense. Now we have to decide waht to do about a regime that shook hands on more than one occasion with the labour party leaders and members past and present.

Whatever happens, I suggest the idea of the US and the UK acting independently of the rest the United Nations is pretty impossible after the Iraq fiasco. It would appear that the PM is awaiting the verdict of the international authorities.

It's a great time to remind ourselves what a bunch of tin pot dictator dealing charlatans the labour party were.

16. At 9:15pm on 28 Feb 2011, bryhers wrote:

ous 4. At 6:33pm on 28 Feb 2011, Endgames wrote:
"Expect U-Turns on some of the Defence spending cuts, Aircraft Carriers are essential in this part of the world"

Mothballing of the Ark and Harriers was a strategic mistake as the military privately admit.The captain first heard it on the news.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you'll find the captain had known about it quite a while longer than that Bryhers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without a platform for fighters and helicopters, we have to get permission from Malta or Cyprus to fly out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True. But bear in mind, Ground Attack Harriers arent much use for enforcing a no fly zone. The Sea Harriers were sold to the Indians by Blair, years ago. You could have a helicopter carrier, by all means - Albion, Ocean and Bulwark could all do that. But a US CBG could do it much better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

They have axed a 100 pilots weeks from qualifying.They cost an arm and a leg to train,can`t now complete and join the auxiliary because technology on advanced fighters is continuously upgraded,and single seater combat specialists have to keep close to the cockpit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what do you do? You keep on training them even though they've got nothing to fly, and may never have? Do you have the remotest inkling of how big a part of the wage bill for the RAF is Flying Pay?

Wouldnt the socialists consider this a shocking waste of money when back home, the poor are being dragged from their beds to be pillaged by the tory squirearchy who are out to eat their firstborns? You reduce your capability, you buy less kit, you train less pilots. Simple. Means you dont go around poking your nose into other countries business when its not warranted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week was ignominuous,Mr Cameron was hawking military hardware to rulers in the gulf whose subjects were calling for their heads outside the tent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
True, that was particularly dumb. Having these visits coincide with IDEX was spectacularly dumb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Clegg off skiing didn`t know he was meant to be in charge as the crisis threatening British subjects in Libya unfolded
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Not good, I readily admit, but hardly a hanging offence. Geoff Hoon, you may care to recall on the eve of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was also, funnily enough on a ski-ing holiday...
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Venezuala" Hague was off with the fairies along with half the foreign office as they rushed around with a leaking oil can trying to make a dodgy commercial hire plane serviceable while military transports waited for orders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness to the FCO, not necessarily to Hague, what you have stated here is grossly oversimplistic and does not reflect what actually happened out there. Not to mention the level of planning and co-ordination that went to putting the extraction plans into place, getting the special forces and the Hercules' into place. Its remarkably easy to poke ill-informed fun from the sidelines, I know, I do it all the time - but this is not quite the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And they may now take us to war!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully not. Theres no grounds for a war. No reason for us to get involved in one. There is no need for us to follow a slavish Blair-like desire to get involved in every single conflict or insurrection that comes down the pipe as part of an "ethical" foreign policy. If they do, then we have merely swapped the Red Tories for Blue Labour.

13. At 8:36pm on 28 Feb 2011, Eatonrifle wrote:

Well if we do need to use the "military Option" at least we have the Harriers which are ideal for that particular theatre...Doh

Nice one Wooster.
------------------------------------------------------------------

No they're not. How is a ground attack/CAS aircraft suitable for enforcing a no-fly-zone then, Brains?? Eh?

Back the drawing board with the rhetoric, Eaton. Helps to have half a clue what you're talking about before you indulge in the ol' knee-jerkery...

32#

Please dont encourage him, the man's a buffoon.

"Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is "delusional" and "unfit to lead", the US ambassador to the UN has said."

Can't see that being delusional makes someone unfit to lead a country. Looking at recent UK incumbents you could almost say it was compulsary.

Nautonier.

" No need for an aircraft carrier ... there are plenty of air bases within aircraft range in the Med ... so please don't write rubbish ... as trying to score cheap political points - this is a very difficult situation for those whose lives are at risk including NATO aircrews etc potentially"

This is not the view of the Navy.The lack of a suitable carrier puts soldier`s lives at risk if we need to launch amphibious operations.Typhoons are not carrier based,permission is needed to use Malta or Cyprus.The Typhoon,to be phased out in 2015,is underpowered,harder to handle than the Harriers and more expensive.

The so-called defence review was driven by cost not strategic necessity.In retiring the Ark and Harriers we have lost our most effective weapon for action in the Med and the Gulf.

What better evidence could there be that Gaddafi really is finished? Clearly the UK and US governments think so. How else can one explain the complete reversal of UK's and the US's policies.

Since a large part of Gaddafi's army has reportedly already defected to the opposition, military help is not likely to be vital. Humanitarian aid would be much more useful.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Catch 22

"Surely with the availability of drones it is quite easy for the west to target Gaddafi, just as we seem to do in Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We are told constantly that we have this capability, yet we don't seem to use it. There is the smell of cordite in the air, because if Libya falls, then how long before Saudi Arabia crumbles under the weight of the 'Arab Spring'."

It`s not outr job to assassinate Colonel Quadaffi,I`m sure he`s capable of doing that himself.

Our more serious problem is rushing in on an ostensibly humanitarian mission,appearing to take sides,while the structures of power in all the Arab states remain in place,even where their leaders have gone like Egypt and Tunisia.

We have no idea what the new regimes will look like,or even at this stage if they will be replaced. What is clear is that the military will be kingmaker as the opposition has had no opportunity to develop political organs.

We may privately sympathize with the humane aspects of the revolution but need to distinguish our private sympathies with our national interest.Mr.Cameron having floundered last week and in a hurry to catch up is in danger of ignoring this distinction.He should remember Lord Palmerston`s words,"We have no permanent friends or permanent enemies,only permanent interests."

32. At 08:30am on 01 Mar 2011, nautonier wrote:
(Re#31.)

this is a very difficult situation for those whose lives are at risk including NATO aircrews etc potentially
================================================

Yep, certainly is a difficult time for aircrew with your tory chums making them redundant.

34 Fubar

Couldn't agree more.

Just for the records. TB and PM have taken a lot of stick in recent days about their dealings with CG. They of course were not the only foreign leaders at the time the time dealing with CG and I have to admit I was all for Blair meeting with with CG at the time to try to secure the release of the 9 Bulgarian nurses that were being tortured and awaiting the death penalty.

Secondly, just a thought about Expats. The people chose to work in Libya to avoid paying UK taxesand were complaining about the lack of response from the UK government in getting them home. All those bankers out there threatening to leave the UK should be a little careful. Not sure that we would send in the SAS to get them out should the occassion arise.

Looking forward to all those repratiated at the tax payers expense filling in their self-assessment tax forms for the 2010-2011 incomes. Should keep the likes of Andy very busy but still won't cover the costs of bringing them home.

Don't worry you should be OK. You'll be pleased to know I've still got the small craft moored in Sandwich, ready at a moments notice, should things get out of hand where you are. You can fill in your own self-assessment on the crossing back:-)

Dear me, the lack of knowledge of defence issues on this blog is amazing!

Yes the SDSR was wrong to scrap Joint Force Harrier, but the people most responsible for that were the RAF's own top brass who wanted to keep their beloved Tornados and at the same time put one over on the Navy. Someone mentions that any of our forces going into Libya wouldn't have air cover because Cameron scrapped "the Sea Harriers." The Sea Harrier was an air defence plane that was scrapped by Blair in 2004, the Harriers that were recently retired were the GR.9 version, a ground attack aircraft with limited air to air capability which would have been of no use for enforcing a no fly zone. I don't remember Labourites complaining about it at the time.

Someone also mentioned we'd need Cyprus' permission to operate out of there, err no we wouldn't! RAF Akrotiri is situated within the Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area, which is legally British Sovereign Territory so we can do whatever we like there!

Still don't let little things like the truth get in the way of a good rant?!

35. At 08:49am on 01 Mar 2011, Peter White wrote:
#31 jon112dk

Of course bankrupting the country probably didn't help with the defence of the realm either and led to short-term decisions being taken.
====================================

Sorry, what's this 'bankrupt' thing again?

What loans has HMG defaulted on?

What bailouts did the disunited kingdom have to accept? According to the tories we have enough spare money to be bailing out other countries.

You and your tory chums have a strange concept of 'bankrupt'

Meanwhile, I'll carry on laughing at lord snooty making proclamations like he is leader of some major world power.

Ho, ho, ho.

... sounds like it is not just gadaffi who is 'delusional'

Each Prime Minister wants to make a name for him/herself in history and the easiest way is to get involved in a successful conflict.
TB got it wrong in Iraq and was economical with the truth and I stupidly believed him about the threat to the UK.
TB got it wrong about Afghanistan - history should have told him it's a no win situation.
Thatcher got it right about Falklands, but whatever the Argentinians think, that was British territory being invaded.
We should keep clear of Libya - we are not here to police the world even if we had the capability and the world agreed. There's no hope of us, the EU, Nato, Us, China, Russia and everyone agreeing. Certainly not China with its record on human rights.
Military intervention should only be considered for successfully extracting British citizens who may be at risk. It's good to see the Foreign Office having a role; better late than never.

No35 Peter,
'bankrupting the country'

Is it necessary to be so ridiculous?

"David Cameron is discussing a no fly zone because there are reports of Libyan aircraft bombing its own citizens ... perhaps you approve of Gaddaffi's non-humanitarian crimes ... are you the Colonel himself?"

I can see why you might think I'm Colonel Gaddafi or approve of Gaddafi's crimes but no I'm not and I don't. This can't be his Thatcher moment because the UK would be a very small partner in a joint operation. He'll have to settle for the wig and the handbag for now.

bryhers
"The Typhoon,to be phased out in 2015,is underpowered,harder to handle than the Harriers and more expensive."

You might be getting your winds mixed up. I think you mean the Tornado. The Typhoon is the new Eurofighter.

Any action against Libya should be under the auspices of the UN, we absolutely should not be sending in ground troops and should limit our support to air support only.

There are other European countries equally affected by events in Libya and they should be prepared to step up to the mark for once, if intervention on humanitarian grounds is deemed necessary.

There are a lot of critical comments about the defence review but defence procurement has got seriously out of hand - the incompetence of the MOD should not be underestimated.

Equipment has been procured only to find it is incompatible with the platform it was procured for and costly modifications have been required to utilise the equipment, to say nothing of the equipment "lost" along the way.

The whole system needs a damned good shake up - some of the decisions made [e.g. aircraft carriers for Rosyth] had political undertones.

However it is undeniable that the whole business, whilst correct in essence has been handled very badly.

I suspect that this is a bit of political grandstanding. And a number of people above seem to want to use it to score political points or support their view of the world which does tend to drag down the level of debate.

I am assuming that we do all "agree with Dave" that the time has come for Gadaffi to go. I also assume we all agree that any action should only be done in accordance with international law.

It seems to me unlikely that we will have the militay resources to do very much. We simply cannot afford to pay for the military resources necessary to project power overseas in two or three theatres at once.

In the world of international relations there will always be inconsistencies - e.g. Iraq/Afghanistan vs Zimbabwe/Rwanda. And to a large extent those inconsistences are explained by National self interest. This country has significant business interests in Libya (e.g. BP) and they have been a good customer of our arms industry.

Military action? Via the UN or not at all. Britain could usefully 'deflate' itself a little in these matters. I hope David Cameron sees it this way too - but I doubt it. Senior politicians in this country seem to like nothing better than a round of 'COBRAs' followed by sending some young people off to kill and be killed.

With it seems, most UK nationals who want to leave, out of Libya, the PM appears to be moving towards agreeing to 'No Fly Zones' over that country.
The somewhat audacious rescues of UK and other nationals from desert camps, by the RAF and Special Forces, has potentially made that possible.
What the PM, whatever he decides on this, should do, is consider this,' if we have to do an operation like this elsewhere, or with greater potential danger/opposition, with perhaps 'No Fly Zones' included, in a few years time-or in the nearer term, in the wake of the Defence review, could we actually do it? '

While the MoD's budget was a huge mess, elements of the SDSR were perverse, not strategy led, rather a snarling George Osbourne led - he wanted 10-15% cuts, he was pressured down to 8% and he will be back for more. Once Fox is reshuffled or ejected from the Cabinet, when a reshuffle comes.
Scrapping brand new Nimrods, leaving the UK not only without any means to conduct sea/undersea surveillance, but also no means to conduct vital co-ordination in major rescue events as the legacy Nimrods did for events like the Piper Alpha disaster, the Fastnet race, as well as protection of fisheries, oil/gas platforms in the world's busiest shipping lanes.
Even small nations like New Zealand and Portugal maintain long range maritime patrol aircraft.

There will be a 'holiday' with the RAF's ability to operate signal intelligence aircraft, a mission that includes monitoring Taliban radio comms, at times UK accents have been picked up by them, a vital intel source.
The almost brand new (and paid for) Sentinel ground surveillance aircraft to be scrapped.

And yet, upwards of £8 Billion to be spent on maintaining 25+ year old Tornado aircraft that will only last until around 2020 anyway, yet half that sum could pay for some additional Typhoon 'Tranche 3' (that is fully 'swing role' air to air/air to ground capable) aircraft to re-equip two Tornado units, with enough spare change for additional unmanned drones (the new BAE Mantis - rather than importing more US ones?) to re-equip a further two Tornado units.

Keeping remaining UK forces in Germany costs £1.23 Billion a year, yet the SDSR only points to a withdrawl for them by 2020 - why not 2015?

Both the Ark Royal and GR.9 Harriers had just completed extensive upgrades.
The Tornados have a 75% availability rate, the GR.9 Harriers 95%
Typhoons being modern are less costly to maintain than Tornados, as well as being single crew member operated - personnel costs being a major expenditure.

Remember all the flak the previous government got (from the Tories) on the lack of support helicopters?
Well, those 22 new Chinooks they DID belatedly order last year, post the SDSR became just 12. Now it seems the Treasury are not funding even that reduced buy, if long lead items are not ordered for these very soon, no chance of delivery for at least 5 years.
When the need for them might not be as urgent - clearly a treasury ruse at work here. (Even if the Chinook fleet in any event needs more new airframes, the legacy fleet, some 30 years old, will need upgrading so will be out of service).

After all the noise they made in opposition on this, I'd love to see them justify this. (They'll probably get some hapless Lib Dem minister to front it out).

The Royal Marines face losing their Sea King support choppers in a few years, without replacement.

Nice one Nick. You know how to get the mob going.

I suppose 'Cameron examining long list of ways to pressure Gaddafi' doesn't have quite the same snap as 'Cameron's first war?'

But then perhaps you're compensating for the lack of media scrutiny over the last foreign invasion. There's no Ali Campbell around now so you are free to hold this lot to account. Here's hoping.


44.bryhers:

"The Typhoon,to be phased out in 2015,is underpowered,harder to handle than the Harriers and more expensive."

They're only just being phased in... that's a short life span for an aircraft costing ±£90M each! And not good value by the sounds of it.

44. At 09:46am on 01 Mar 2011, bryhers wrote:

Nautonier.

" No need for an aircraft carrier ... there are plenty of air bases within aircraft range in the Med ... so please don't write rubbish ... as trying to score cheap political points - this is a very difficult situation for those whose lives are at risk including NATO aircrews etc potentially"

This is not the view of the Navy.The lack of a suitable carrier puts soldier`s lives at risk if we need to launch amphibious operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, not militarily correct. Thats the whole point of having LST's and the likes of Albion, Bulwark and Ocean. You wouldnt do that without at least Air Superiority or ideally Air Supremacy, or a benign Air environment, which is what you've got now. There isnt, at the moment, a credible air threat.

But more relevant to this particular case, for the love of all that is holy, WHY would you even want to think about considering an amphib assault in this case??? Can I make sure I understand you correctly?? Are you talking general terms or specifically about Libya?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Typhoons are not carrier based,permission is needed to use Malta or Cyprus.The Typhoon,to be phased out in 2015,is underpowered,harder to handle than the Harriers and more expensive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, not strictly accurate. Malta could be a forward operating base, so could other units in Italy, as was the case with the Balkan No Fly Zone. Cyprus is too far away and we dont have enough of a strategic Air To Air refuelling capability yet, thanks to the donkeys who signed the PFI deal for it. Lastly, the Typhoons that are being phased out in 2015 are the Tranche 1 Typhoons, NOT the Tranche 2 or 3 ones. The RAF will have sufficient Typhoons to meet its projected requirements of seven fast jet squadrons prior to taking on the F35C. Thats what the Air Staff agreed to. If they didnt want it, they should have put their pensions where their mouths were and resigned their commissions. One can only assume that their silence means agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The so-called defence review was driven by cost not strategic necessity.In retiring the Ark and Harriers we have lost our most effective weapon for action in the Med and the Gulf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First part, largely accurate, but a bit rich for the left to bang this particular drum considering they didnt exactly find the right funding for their own interventionist "ethical" foreign policy stance. Second part, not strictly true. Neither the carriers or the Harriers played a significant part in either Gulf War 1, 2 or Iraq in 2003. Very handy thing to have, no doubt, particularly if you want to play world PCSO and also for defending British sovereign interests abroad, but it comes at a price, as does its replacements. Can you really afford it and what are you going to do with it?

Here we go again. The British Government interfering in a situation in the Middle East, that they have not made a proper assessment of beforehand. If there is one sure way to unite the Arab World against them, it is if Britain and America become involved in Libya. China and Russia must be laughing their socks off, thinking about these cash strapped Countries, yet again making the same mistakes.

Because of defence cuts Britain will not have the ability to protect itself, let alone its interests in other Countries. A Country which would rather have a massive public sector, than defend itself properly, should just keep silent in these circumstances, not take the lead. Cameron may very well take Gaddafi as a fool, but unfortunately he is not. A wrong calculation by Britain at this time may cost very dearly.

Who will save us from these career politicians in the Coalition and Labour, who just don't have a clue, I wonder.

51#

People who used to laugh at nothing all the time used to get sectioned or institutionalised in the old days....

Care in the community obviously isnt working for you is it jon?

50. JPSLotus79 wrote:

"Dear me, the lack of knowledge of defence issues on this blog is amazing!


If it doesn't suit a political agenda, it's not relevant.

sagamix...

That is a pretty rich comment coming from someone who supported the last government.

Gordon Brown would have called a meeting of COBRA if a bird had got stuck in the Downing Street chimney.

59. me

They're only just being phased in... that's a short life span for an aircraft costing ±£90M each! And not good value by the sounds of it.

Amendment...Tranche 1 delivered to the RAF in 2007. But in relative terms, not many miles on the clock.

Robin @ 64

Why are you still in the playground when all the other boys and girls have gone inside?

Let's have a bit of honesty here.

Snooty is no more concerned for the ordinary people of Libya than is he is for the underclasses of the disunited kingdom.

Snooty is worried that a new government in Libya may remember who backed gadaffi and start awarding the oil contracts to someone other than his rich chums. He is desperately posturing as a saviour of the libyan people in order to position himself for the aftermath.

Any british serviceman contemplating risking his life for queen and country should have a quick think about whether it is worth it. Is it really worth putting yourself at risk when the goal is yet more money for a few rich owners of already prosperous oil companies and your reward is redundancy when you get back?

'Regime change' is not a legimate reason for one state to use force against another state, it's the business of the citizens of that state to decide upon... and it is none of our business who they choose to administer their country on their behalf.

pdavies65..

when are you going to add any value?

67. At 11:19am on 01 Mar 2011, jon112dk wrote:

Let's have a bit of honesty here.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd love to think that, whenever I skim read past your posts jon, but somehow, its always like coitus interruptus.... I'm always left disappointed.

67. jon112dk wrote:

'Any british serviceman contemplating risking his life for queen and country should have a quick think about whether it is worth it. Is it really worth putting yourself at risk when the goal is yet more money for a few rich owners of already prosperous oil companies and your reward is redundancy when you get back?'


Does this apply to those serving in Afghanistan?

34. At 08:42am on 01 Mar 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:


"Stay the hell out of it."

^ For once, we're in agreement here Fubar (Hell must surely have frozen over...!).

39. At 09:33am on 01 Mar 2011, rockRobin7 wrote:

"The BBCC muck raking about a potential war...Standards of journalism on the BBCC are really plummeting....It's a great time to remind ourselves what a bunch of tin pot dictator dealing charlatans the labour party were."

^ I really don't where to start on this...so I won't bother too much. Suffice to say Robin's contribution to this blog never fails to remind me of Charlie Brooker's 'Daily Mail Island' on TVGoHome. Which makes Robin either a very cunning and ironic satirist, or just simply, well....you know.

Back on topic: a 'military solution' to Libya was already on the horizon a fortnight ago. We certainly can't afford one and as Fubar has already said, we need to "stay the hell out of it". What worries me is that I get the feeling Cameron and co. are itching for a 'good war' to get their ratings up - yes, this is probably deeply cynical of me, I know. But worse things have happened at sea... back when we had a navy, that is.

Cameron / Blair... it's becoming quite a heady blur, isn't it?

I wrote:-

This is not the view of the Navy.The lack of a suitable carrier puts soldier`s lives at risk if we need to launch amphibious operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FS replied:-
"First off, not militarily correct. Thats the whole point of having LST's and the likes of Albion, Bulwark and Ocean. You wouldnt do that without at least Air Superiority or ideally Air Supremacy, or a benign Air environment, which is what you've got now. There isnt, at the moment, a credible air threat.
But more relevant to this particular case, for the love of all that is holy, WHY would you even want to think about considering an amphib assault in this case??? Can I make sure I understand you correctly?? Are you talking general terms or specifically about Libya?"

I first had intimation that all was not well with the scrapping of the Ark and Harriers from friends in the Navy.The captain learned he was sunk from the news,astonished pilots put for sale signs on their cockpits and allowed photographs.

When a more sober assessment could be made,I heard of the gap in the Uk defence capability,the limitations of the Typhoon,shore based, underpowered and hard to handle.The difficulty of projecting UK power abroad without a platform to carry aircraft and helicopters.Land bases around the Med or Gulf usually require permission.

Then in February 2011 the "Telegraph", leaked a letter from retired military people sent to Mr.Cameron,I quote:-

" The scrapping of the Royal Navy's Harrier fleet, in particular, has "profound consequences" that "strike at the heart of our Defence structure", they say.

The authors, who include Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the former head of the Armed Forces, as well as six retired admirals and three generals, say the move undermines the Navy's ability to protect the Army or Royal Marines on amphibious operations.

These can no longer be attempted against "even a lightly armed aggressor" without "considerable risk" to the safety of soldiers, they say."

Their comments reinforce what I had heard independently.I have merely conveyed this in my post.

Cameron wants to face two ways at once: to appeal to anti-war sentiments by showing reluctance to continue to support NATO in Afghanistan on the one hand, and to talk big stick about Libya on the other.
The critical reality is that the Taliban and their allies on bikes have proved themselves both tough enough to defeat the Soviet Union's mighty Red Army (a good thing) and to pin down a vast NATO force (a bad thing). There's no prospect of a nice 'victory parade' in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, Gaddafi's regime is both a clear villain and a much easier push-over. A victory ceremony is a good prospect for our chief PR man.

Expect more bellicose speechifying about Libya.

No61 Susan,
After 30 years of miserable, and failed neo-liberalism,are you sure we now have a 'massive public sector'?

44. At 09:46am on 01 Mar 2011, bryhers wrote:

Nautonier.

" No need for an aircraft carrier ... there are plenty of air bases within aircraft range in the Med ... so please don't write rubbish ... as trying to score cheap political points - this is a very difficult situation for those whose lives are at risk including NATO aircrews etc potentially"

This is not the view of the Navy.The lack of a suitable carrier puts soldier`s lives at risk if we need to launch amphibious operations.Typhoons are not carrier based,permission is needed to use Malta or Cyprus.The Typhoon,to be phased out in 2015,is underpowered,harder to handle than the Harriers and more expensive.

The so-called defence review was driven by cost not strategic necessity.In retiring the Ark and Harriers we have lost our most effective weapon for action in the Med and the Gulf.

......................

Having big expensive aircraft carriers puts the UK at the forefront of every major international confrontation going forward - we're better off without them and without them we cannot lead an international force.

Let other the nations shoulder some responsibility on this instead of Britain punching above its weight and putting our service personnel at higher and higher casualty levels.

Britain does not need an aircraft carrier here ... Libya is right on the doorstep of Europe/Nato and within range of Nato and other friendly airbases in the Med and Africa... and Britain needs to take a proportionate role as a Nato or UN member.

Please try and keep up with the facts and evaluate the risk to our armed forces ... Britain should not go rushing in as it did in Iraq and elsewhere ... David Cameron has got it absolutely right.

The other thing about aircraft carriers is that they are very sinkable and need a massive escort to keep them safe ... leave the millitary issues to the MOD/Dr Fox who understand this stuff better than us ... we can all pontificate from our armchairs ... Britain has to co-operate with its EU and NATO allies to keep the world safe ... make the right noises and do the right things at the right time as part of a concerted international effort ... David Cameron is getting this absolutely right by moving early and expressing humanitarian concerns.

Britain will still have the largest armed forces set up in Europe even after all the cuts to MOD money wasting ... our armed forces have to be affordable whether or not the result matches the equipment ideals of e.g. the Navy.

Britain has to do its best with whatever it has got and make sure it moves only in partnership with its allies as a proportional millitary contribution ... otherwise we will end up with another mess like Iraq ... David Cameron is obviously aware of avoiding these mistakes as made by the last labour govt.

Don't believe the hype ... look at the facts!

Supported them in some things, Robin (64), but not in their Middle Eastern adventures. (Although that was more Tony Blair than it was Labour, to be fair). No, the sooner Britain limits its use of non UN approved military action to defence of the realm, the better. Our problem lies with the Tarzan Tendency of our politicians. They like a bit of this even in opposition, but when that vicarious thrill is replaced by the real thing ... when they attain power and can call COBRAs and talk in a grave and portentous way about military force to Admirals and Generals ... well, then they simply love it. It plays to their notion of being key players on the world stage. 'Big Men' making 'Big Decisions'. And given you need an overweaning self-importance to get to the top in Westminster politics, I'm not holding my breath for this to change. But I really wish it would. What we need is a feminisation of foreign and defence policy - less Tarzan, more Jane.

Dave should try to avoid making an enemy of Gadhafi, one never knows
when one might need some advice about putting down an insurrection on
one's own streets. One might also need some advice about where to flee
when hounded out of one's own country. Imagine Dave, Clegg and
Gadhafi, plus maybe Mubarak and some other ex-leaders holed up on some
island fortress. Would make a great reality show.

So here we are then, all those who supported the fall of the General now lamenting the civil war that is breaking out in Libya. The same is happening in the other countries caught up in this wave of change. The problem is that who or what is going to take the place of the regime they are replacing. Now before you all jump to the keyboard, perhaps already too late for some... I am not saying that the change was not needed but more about its pace. It is strange that we all and I mean all did very little if anything to bring about any changes in these countries prior to this populous uprising however we are all now on our soap boxes shout about how bad things have been under these despots while hopping onto a plane to go to the Red Sea resorts.

Calls for the UN to step in, however they have only ever acted as peace keepers any other military excursions such as the invasion on Bosnia where lead by other countries acting under their banner. What about the EU, well the area would be turned back into sand before they could get their act together. Yes they will now condone but not in such inflammatory words until the deed is done and done by someone else.

So the options are that we let them sort themselves out while we all look on and criticise the inactivity of our and other governments OR we step in along with others while we the populous stand on the sidelines and criticise what is happening and our involvement.

If only we had blogs prior to WW2 we could of all done nothing but criticised what was happening and our part in that.

At some point action will have to be taken by someone to just bring the region back to some sort of normality. So the sensible thing would be for the UN to send in a peace keeping force and to try and let democracy have a chance.

Prior to the Iraq war there were those who were calling for their then leader to be deposed due to the mistreatment of his own fellow country men. Then we had those who complained that we invaded and the regime was changed. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The problem is that this region is so unstable that the neighbours can't and don't want to get involved so international help will have to be forthcoming until the vacuum is filled and here is the bad news that will take years as we are seeing in Iraq.

Welcome to the real world, not a nice place to be a lot of the time.

And as for jon112dk and his like who on the one hand call for uprising and demonstrations however do not think of the consequences and that at some stage the pieces will have to be picked up and the things that get broken will have to be rebuilt or replaced.

I support those who oppose any regime and believe that they should be allowed to demonstrate their opposition however there needs to be restraint on all sides and the opposition should always be peaceful for if not violence will escalate on all sides.

bryhers
"The Typhoon,to be phased out in 2015,is underpowered,harder to handle than the Harriers and more expensive."
You might be getting your winds mixed up. I think you mean the Tornado. The Typhoon is the new Eurofighter.

My Understanding is the tornado has been retained for service in Afghanistan
The new JSF Typhoon is not yet avalable for naval use pending the arrival of the new carriers.

So we have it again labour reck the ecomoomy and make major defence projetcs mistakes

1) JSF V naval thypoons
2) scapping some Harriers and all Jaguars
3) Not placing the order for new carriers 7-8 years ago
4) Cutting the T45 Destroyer numbers
5) shelving the Meduim lift helo programme
6) Making a right mess of the Chinook programme
7) Nimrod
8) cancelling the GR10 upgrade
X) list goes on and on.

The the tories have to sort the mess out and have a botched SDR because they are movign too fast, remind me of 1980.

All because Gordon Brown wanted to keep his job

The price the UK will pay for this will last a long time

@77

...as in "Jane" Thatcher???

I broadly agree with you - it is all grandstanding. I had hoped with the strategic defence review we were finally starting to get more realistic about our place in the world order but when even young Ed bemoans the loss of our defensive capabilities, I fear we have a long way to go.

Also perverse to phase out 5 year old Typhoon Tranche 1 airframes.
All modern aircraft of that generation, be it the French Rafale, the US F-22 and upcoming F-35, being the complex software driven machines they are, have additional capabilities phased in over time.
In the case of Typhoon, Tranche 1 aircraft, of which the RAF has about 50, are largely air defence, though some basic air to ground abilities - to carry guided bombs - have been added.
Tranche 2 has more of this ability 'out of the box', with greater computing power and minor airframe modifications, the RAF is slowly taking delivery of around 90 of these.
Tranche 3 will have more ability still as well as being easier and cheaper to add further ones too, out of an originally planned 88, just 16 are on order.

Since we are talking about policing no fly zones, since the Russians in the last few years have started probing UK airspace again with long range aircraft - as they did in the Cold War - since 2001 we have seen to need to have aircraft on Quick Reaction Alert in case terrorists again use civil airliners as weapons, it does not seem to be that sensible to discard a couple of squadrons worth of perfectly useful assets already brought and paid for.
So Tranche 1 Typhoons have only a limited air to ground ability, (it would cost almost as much to buy new ones than to bring them up to Tranche 2 or 3 standard). So just maintain them in an Air Defence configuration then, leaving the more capable later ones to do the 'swing role' stuff.

(And the stuff above about them being 'underpowered' and 'hard to handle - actually done by 70 computers - is nonsense).

Why have them at all?
Consider, to maintain for any length of time say, a squadron of Typhoons on Cyprus for the No Fly Zone, or a warship in the West Indies doing all that counter narcotic work, or an infantry batallion deployed on operations, wherever that might be, you need three of them.
One squadron/warship/batallion deployed, one having returned from deployment resting, re-equipping, retraining, one preparing to replace the squadron/warship/batallion once their deployment ends - or to bolster them if need be.
At a minimum.

In a few years time, the RAF could be down to just 6 front line fast jet squadrons (of 12-15 aircraft per squadron).
That's to do it all. QRA for UK airspace, potential work like the NFZ mooted for Libya, supporting UK forces elsewhere perhaps, plus the unknown, out of nowhere events.

73 - "I first had intimation that all was not well with the scrapping of the Ark and Harriers from friends in the Navy."

Golly.

Was it at one of those dinner parties where you speculate how spiffing it would be if you could be working class for a day, just to see what it was like?

77. At 12:03pm on 01 Mar 2011, sagamix wrote:

"What we need is a feminisation of foreign and defence policy - less Tarzan, more Jane."

^ I couldn't agree more; nicely put.

73#

Ok, fine, you reported what you heard and put your own gloss on it. Fair enough.

And, as much as the service of the noble cross bench peers was appreciated when they were in uniform, they themselves have been as much a part of the problem as they have the solution. It is all well and good to bang on about matters like this now, when ones pension is not in danger. However, at the time, when they were serving, with very few exceptions most of these senior officers were engaged in the petty, feral-cats-in-a-bag single service fights to protect their own domains at the expense of their partner services, ie the RAF and the Navy slagging each other off and the Army trying to do the pair of them down.

Now, those currently at the top and those who have been at the top for the last 20 years have a lot to answer for. This is not a political problem per se, although politicisation of ministries is hardly a productive thing, as we've found out over the last decade. This has been pure naked self interest by the single service chiefs. Some of it was trying to be too clever by half, offering up sacrificial lambs in the hope that the politicos wouldnt dare cut said resource. The Dutch did a similar thing with their equivalent of Nimrod and lost the lot and as a result suffer a similar capability gap to what we are going to do. The Navy, in our case, bet the farm on the aircraft carriers, instead of thinking about what the hell they are going to fly off them and what is going to protect those assets, from surface, subsurface and air threats. Lkikewise, the fast jet brigade who run the upper echelons of the air force have bet the farm on Tornado and Typhoon, let the strategic air transport fleet wither on the vine without replacement, signed the wretched AirTanker PFI deal, deliberately sacrificed the Harrier in order to try and get the navy out of fixed wing military aviation... these idiots need to be shaken warmly by the throat. Dont forget that the results of SDSR, regardless of the fact that they were treasury driven - lets not pretend otherwise - were agreed to by the serving single service chiefs. Had they felt that strongly about it, I repeat, they could have put their pensions where their mouths were and resigned their commissions.

To a man, they did not. None of them. Their silence is taken as complicity. They agreed to it.

Its not just purely the fault of the political classes who like to wrap themselves up in the union flag when they figure another five year term is in the offing for them to line their own pockets at taxpayers expense, only to grind the flag beneath the heels of their brogues when the public's attention is elsewhere. The political masters' part of the bargain is to decide what they want the forces to be. Offensive or purely defensive. Ethical foreign policy versus NATO commitments in Europe/Stay at home. Once you've decided that, you structure and fund them accordingly. You dont do what Blair did, decide to get into a w*lly-waving contest and then let Brown slowly choke the life out of the budget unless there was something in it for him personally (The incredulously stupid BAe Aircraft carrier contract) whilst using the ethical foreign policy to assert a perceived quasi-imperial moral judgement on other nations ability to govern their territories. You dont do what Cameron is doing either, specifically playing to the gallery and talking about these types of operations as if they were a given, when you know in yourself you havent got the personnel, the equipment or the political mandate to deliver on it.

The service chiefs have, over the last 20 years betrayed their personnel, both those who are still serving and those who have either left the service or worse still, those who have lost their lives on active service.

#58 Sonicboomer, interesting what you say about the chinook Mk6 numbers
as I understand its 12 + 10 options + 2 replacement for those that were lost 1-2 years ago. But the contracts have still not been signed.

see the dead hand of the treasury at play,

fox should resign

80. At 12:10pm on 01 Mar 2011, bryhers wrote:

Almost there;

Harrier - gone and despite all the laments it unfortunately was costing too much to keep this ageing aircraft in the sky. It had way outlived it life expectancy.

Tornado - Going in 2015 or at least some to begin with and as with the harrier it has come to the end of its life and the cost of keeping it in the skies is rising rapidly.

Typhoon - Here now and is the new element of our air defence and will be for a number of years to come.

JSF - Coming, the replacement of the harrier and with a broad number uses should be with us prior to the new carriers coming on line.

Contrary to belief it is the fact that the carriers were order so late that has caused us so much embarrassment and the delays were down to both the goverment and the MoD themselves not being able to get their act together and thinking outside the box along with the budget restraints good old Gordon put on the MoD.

78#

Might seem a nice pipe dream to you nondom. You've got as much chance of that happening on the streets of the UK as you have of knitting fog. Nobodys up for it, certainly not in sufficient numbers anyway, no-one can organise it and those that talk about it the loudest would be the ones who would be running off home to mammy as fast as their little legs would carry them at the first whiff of cordite, having lost control over their bladder functions.

Fantasy land blog from Nick.
Still no blog on labours alternative plans re the financial crisis.

Maniacal despot who thinks nothing of killing his own people.
Supported in the past by western leaders when it suited them.
Controls a country with big amounts of oil.
Makes nonsensical mad speeches showing a complete lack of reality.
Puts family in positions of power to cement grip.

Is this a) Gaddafi or b) Saddam or c) Lots of other examples.

For those trying to make a political point above please try and rise above it. We desperately need to consider a step change in foreign relations to get away from this mire of hypocrisy we end up in time and time again. We can go back through the last 100 years and show countless examples of where UK leaders have made decisions that don't stand up to moral examination, no matter what political party they belonged to.

The UN has to be made to work properly in these situations or we will keep revisiting this and probably sooner each time.

80#

JSF (the F35C, not the originally ordered B variant) and the Typhoon are completely seperate entities. Totally different. Typhoon is a 4th generation platform designed in the late 80's/early 90's as an interceptor, not necessarily multi role, no stealth capability. The F35 is a fifth generation fighter multi role lightweight aircraft, envisaged as a replacement for the F16.

India has been mulling over buying a navalised version of the Typhoon for use on its carriers. However, this hasnt left the drawing board yet and if it is to work, will result in some serious redesign work to adapt it and its structures, from undercarraige doors to wing design for it to be a feasible carrier-borne asset. The cost, knowing BAe, will run into billions. They'd be better off buying the naval version of the Sukhoi Flanker for their carriers which is already a proven, highly capable design and would probably also be able to offer them the industrial kick-backs that they're looking for as well.

Coats @ 82

Ha. Well no, the Iron Lady was a 'Big Man' in the (derogatory) sense in which I'm using the term. I agree with you regarding defence spending and MoD procurement practices (your observation further up the thread). The epicentre of government waste we could call it, if we were in that sort of mood.

90. At 12:38pm on 01 Mar 2011, telecasterdave wrote:

"Fantasy land blog from Nick.
Still no blog on labours alternative plans re the financial crisis."

^ Yeah, sorry Dave. I guess, y'know, the issue of pending conflict in Libya has overshadowed Tory bleating about it all being "Labour's mess" - at least for a couple of days.

Fear not, I'm sure the regular service you enjoy will resume once this silly business is over and done with.

----------

86. At 12:34pm on 01 Mar 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

"The service chiefs have, over the last 20 years betrayed their personnel, both those who are still serving and those who have either left the service or worse still, those who have lost their lives on active service."

^ I don't know what's happening today, Fubar, but that's another point I agree with you on! Has someone been putting LSD in my Nescafe, or what?? ;-)

83#

Makes a change to see someone with obviously deep knowledge of the subject at hand; agree with 90% of what you say, obviously well informed and either serving still or recently left. Tranche 1 is perfectly capable of carrying out the UK and Falklands QRA tasks, plus covering the rotating QRA tasks for the Baltic, and for what its worth, I would advocate keeping them and using them specifically for those purposes. No swing role is required for these tasks. Tranche 2 would effectively be the Jaguar/Harrier CAS replacement frames. Tranche 3 they were trying to offload to the Omanis. So confident were they that they pencilled in the 400million quid before the deal was done. I dont think I'd bet the farm on that deal actually going through any time soon...

Again, they failed to learn the lessons of the Tornado contract where they were committed to buying the ADV when they didnt really want it. The Typhoon contract has been no different. Likewise the A400M contract fiasco.

Only other thing I'd take issue with is the Carib guardship. I understand that part of the post-independence deal for the former Carib colonies was the presence of an RN guard ship and assistance from the RN when needed for a period of fifty years, post-succession. This fifty year period is now up. The counter-narcotics mission has been secondary to that, but an excellent PR mission, if nothing else. We do not have the surface units any more capable of providing that cover and the replacement of a dozen T42's with the six T45's is going to be nowhere near enough to cover it, plus the Falklands, plus the NATO commitments, plus the protection of the UK's sea lanes. Not a hope in hell.

The only other thing you maybe didnt take into account was deep servicing and in the cases of naval assets, refits and overhauls when it comes to deciding how many assets/squadrons/ships etc are required, but, thats largely semantics.

Re 'Jane' Thatcher (Coats @ 82, Sagamix @ 93)

I'd like to point out, in fairness to our ex PM, that although her popularity was bolstered by the Falklands War in 1982, she personally did not favour military action to regain the Falklands and was reportedly bullied into it by her party.

Andy @ 84

Are you keeping Robin company or did you not hear the bell?

88, the GR.9 Harriers had just had avionic upgrades, new rear fuselages, an upgraded engine, support contracts had been signed to maintain this force to 2018 and costed around £700 million.
Don't believe the (RAF top brass) hype.
They've been gunning for do this for years in the hope of ending any Naval pretensions to fast jet aviation.

But without the CVF programme, they, the UK, would not be in the F-35 game at all, which they now cast hungry eyes at.

Some two years ago, it was estimated that to maintain a coherent force structure, with commitments out to 2015 in Afghanistan (8 fast jets), with all the other tasks I mentioned above, plus 'a bit in the bank' for the unforeseen, the minimum number of fast jet RAF squadrons going forward (less the two planned Navy F-35B units), was 12 fast jet squadrons.
A 5 or so years time, it could be half that.

I don't blame Liam Fox, however cack handed he is, no, it's the man who is it seems trying to emulate US Vice President Dick Cheney into retreating into a bunker after '9/11' - metaphorically at least - Osbourne.

I do agree that the service Chiefs are complicit too, the worst by far being the RAF, they tear lumps out of each other while the Treasury smiles.
And that's nothing new.

94#

Because mate, as you know, beneath all the sparring, some of us genuinely do give a monkeys. And when thats the case, the political positions are never really that far apart.

"the options are that we let them sort themselves out while we all look on and criticise the inactivity of our government" - chris @ 79

There's also the option of the first without the second. Act only on compelling humanitarian grounds and as part of an international effort.