[Blog]End of the Road for the RN(Longish)

[TimothyC]

More importantly, France, unlike the UK, has plenty of export markets and is succesfully exporting their stuff.

Well, as an aside, French military exports aren't doing too great recently. The Rafale can't find a buyer and they have a lot of competition in the frigate, submarine and tank market segments.

They are doing quite well with Brazil at the moment with both Subs and the Rafale.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

They are doing quite well with Brazil at the moment with both Subs and the Rafale.

I hear the Scorpene is having trouble submerging though.

[Lonestar]

Nothing has been inked in regards to the Rafale, either. The competition hasn't even gotten closed to being finished.

[TC27]

I wonder if the competing French and American companies will be subject to the same scrutiny BAe has being under regarding the Suadi Arabia Typhoon sale?

[Pelranius]

I wonder if the competing French and American companies will be subject to the same scrutiny BAe has being under regarding the Suadi Arabia Typhoon sale?

Probably not. American and French companies also have a lot of skeletons in their closets so disqualifying them on that basis would probably leave Brazil with the Russians and they have their skeletons too*.

*I assume that you are referring to the Brazilian fighter competition?

[JointStrikeFighter]

More importantly, France, unlike the UK, has plenty of export markets and is succesfully exporting their stuff.

Well, as an aside, French military exports aren't doing too great recently. The Rafale can't find a buyer and they have a lot of competition in the frigate, submarine and tank market segments.

The big money in defence doesn't come from big ticket items; it comes from small shit like avionics, radios, ammunition, maintenance contracts. Thales do a shitload of small scale efforts like this; in the last decade the Australian government alone has spent billions on purchases to Thales.

[TC27]

Interesting development - looks like the defence secretary Liam Fox is putting his political career on the line:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ences.html

Photo: PA In a private letter to David Cameron seen by The Daily Telegraph, the Defence Secretary refuses to back any substantial reduction in the Armed Forces.

He says it risks seriously damaging troops’ morale.


Security Review (SDSR). In it, Dr Fox says the Tories risk “destroying much of the reputation and capital” they have built up on defence.

The review is becoming indefensible, he suggests, warning of the “brutal reaction” from the party, press and military if “we do not recognise the dangers and continue to push for such draconian cuts at a time when we are at war”.

Senior Whitehall sources suggested that his intervention was a considerable political gamble after he agreed in public that the MoD had to take the pain of cuts.

The Treasury has asked the ministry to find ten per cent savings on its annual £37billion budget and the letter will further inflame Dr Fox’s relationship with George Osborne, the Chancellor. The Defence Secretary claims to have the support of other ministers.

The NSC was presented with a paper earlier this month that listed the scale of MoD cuts required to meet the Treasury’s reduction in its budget.

It is understood that tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen face losing their jobs.

The Navy’s plan for new aircraft carriers is under threat, and ministers have argued over replacing the Trident nuclear submarines. Its fleet of amphibious craft could be scrapped.

The RAF is likely to lose many fighters and any new Nimrod surveillance aircraft. The Territorial Army is also facing cuts.

The review has been under way for months and has been criticised by MPs and senior commanders. But this is the first time the Defence Secretary’s fears have been made public.

In a document marked “for the Prime Minister’s eyes only”, Dr Fox writes: “Frankly, this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR and more like a “super CSR” (comprehensive spending review).

“If it continues on its current trajectory it is likely to have grave political consequences for us.”

He also warns: “Our decisions today will limit severely the options available to this and all future governments.”

Despite five months’ hard work by MoD civil servants and servicemen to examine how to make at least £4billion in savings, the cuts are “financially and intellectually virtually impossible”, he says.

Dr Fox suggests that they discuss whether “we are really prepared to see Defence spending reduced to this level”. He says: “The range of operations that we can do today we will simply not be able to do in the future.”

The Navy will have to withdraw from one of its key “standing commitments”, the Gulf, Indian Ocean or Caribbean.

Losing amphibious landing ships will leave Britain unable to mount even a relatively small operation such as the mission in Sierra Leone 10 years ago, he warns.

The nuclear deterrent will also be at severe risk of detection and oil rigs will be vulnerable to terrorist attack if the programme for the new Nimrod MR4 maritime reconnaissance plane is cancelled.

It will also affect the security of the Falklands. On the home front, the Armed Forces will struggle to provide cover for crises such as foot and mouth, firemen’s strikes, Mumbai-style attacks and the 2012 London Olympics, he warns.

The scale of cuts will “seriously damage morale across the Armed Forces” and they will coincide with a “period of major challenge (and, in all probability, significant casualties) in Afghanistan”, he says.

He concludes: “It would be a great pity if, having championed the cause of our Armed Forces and set up the innovation of the NSC, we simply produced a cuts package. Cuts there will have to be. Coherence, we cannot do without, if there is to be any chance of a credible narrative.”

In a sign of ministers’ concerns, the NSC yesterday reviewed Dr Fox’s work and asked for more research into the impact of possible cuts. The council asked for more “efficiency savings” in equipment procurement and further analysis of possible cuts in programmes including the two new aircraft carriers. Mr Cameron told the NSC that the defence review would not be allowed to undermine operations in Afghanistan.

Downing Street confirmed that Mr Cameron was aware of Dr Fox’s “concerns”. A spokesman said: “You would expect the Secretary of State to make robust representations.”

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't recall saying that they should, what I did say is that the UK should control their own trade again, that is to say the same as every other nation.

And how are they going to do that aside from leaving the EU?

Norway manages to have open and free trade with the EU, without having to be part of the political elements of it via the EEA, if they can do it so can the UK or any EU member.

Every example besides Switzerland does not have the EU next door and does not really need the EU as a have-or-die market. Switzerland has already signed many of the trade agreements and takes great care not to anger the EU, even abandoning their most secret bank silence in order to do so.

Aside from Norway.
Geographical proximity does not somehow arbitrarily mean you have to have a supranational organisation like the EU, and why one would do so when you can improve your trade position by trading freely with the rest of the planet is beyond me.
Oh, nice to have the nature of the EU revealed, obey or we screw you, thanks for that.

[Stuart Mackey]

So Theo van Gough was a random murder, or all those Jewish people leaving Malmo are just going on vacation? then there was that whole spineless response to the cartoon fiasco, and it was a fiasco; not often one gets to see so many politicians bend over and ask for more in unison. So much for free speech. Eurofighter didn't do a damn thing about it either when the Islamic nations decided to boycott their exports.

You are so far out of the loop in Europe that I am really wondering on what planet you live. Heck, just a few days ago Merkel awarded a prize to the cartoonist in question. And there is no exodus of Jews from Europe. What have you been listening to, some hyper anti-EU screeching? Because that is the only way your opinions make sense.

I did not say Europe, please read it again, I distinctly said Malmo, I understand that Malmo is not another name for Europe, is this not so?
Moreover, as for anti EU screeching, I imagine you dont like the sound of most of the UK then? 60%want to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU and 55% want to leave while retaining a trading relationship, presumably like Norway has. Lots of anti-EU screechers in the UK

But back to your original point. You claimed the UK can do much better alone - something contradicted by the snip

I was talking about multinational jobs that go wrong like A400M, not buying missiles of the French.
And how does UK MOD's inability to prioritize, as well as the UK government, have any thing to do with messing around with EU governments who themselves do not know what they want? Such things can only complicate the problems of any company trying to build something. Beedal, more over did not talk about ships per se but

naval weapon systems, radars, sonar's, command systems and other electronics that will then be manufactured and deployed in only tiny numbers.

I would also note that I never said that the UK should not buy overseas, why would I when they have done so in the past very successfully on occasion, what I am opposed to is these multi government projects that seem to screw things up like A400M, I am not opposed to corporate co-operation, or buying of the shelf from elsewhere, which is a prudent course of action.

[Zaune]

So 55% of the British population are as big a bunch of self-deluded fantasists as those idiots who think Texas should secede? That figures.

[Simon_Jester]

The UK is a viable state without EU membership, just not a first-rank world power, or even a high-end second-rank power, really. There are plenty of other countries smaller and poorer than the UK that do just fine.

To a far greater extent than Texas, or any other US state, the UK can go it alone if need be. There just aren't a lot of good reasons for them to do so.

So comparing "we don't want to be in the EU but want to retain a trading relationship" with American secessionist movements is disingenuous. Texas was never particularly viable without the US backing it up, as shown by the fact that it only lasted about ten years before the US annexed it. The UK survived much, much longer than that, and shows few or no signs of being in any kind of absolute decay* that would require them to band together with the EU purely for survival, rather than for optional strategic and economic objectives.

*Absolute, not relative to what they had some time ago

[Zaune]

The UK is a viable state without EU membership, just not a first-rank world power, or even a high-end second-rank power, really. There are plenty of other countries smaller and poorer than the UK that do just fine...

... Texas was never particularly viable without the US backing it up, as shown by the fact that it only lasted about ten years before the US annexed it. The UK survived much, much longer than that, and shows few or no signs of being in any kind of absolute decay* that would require them to band together with the EU purely for survival, rather than for optional strategic and economic objectives.

*Absolute, not relative to what they had some time ago

If we still had a primarily industrial economy, maybe. But the balance of power between government and corporation has dramatically shifted now that multi-national corporations are the norm; when you've got operations on three different continents, particularly ones concerned with intangibles like financial services rather than physical goods, one tiny island of a mere seventy-odd million souls is a market you can probably afford to lose if they don't want to play ball. An entire United States of Europe, not so much.