Britain unable to patrol territorial waters without help from NATO

[Metrailway]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11283926/Britain-forced-to-ask-Nato-to-track-Russian-submarine-in-Scottish-waters.html

Britain forced to ask Nato to track 'Russian submarine' in Scottish waters

Defence experts said it is 'hugely embarassing' that defence cuts mean Britain can no longer patrol its own waters


Britain called in Nato sea patrol planes to hunt for a suspected Russian submarine off Scotland last month, after the Government scrapped its own similar aircraft in defence cuts, it has been disclosed.

Maritime patrol aircraft from France, America and Canada flew to Scotland to join Royal Navy warships hunting for the suspected submarine after it was spotted at sea, west of Scotland

At the height of the hunt in late November and first days of December, four allied patrol planes flew to RAF Lossiemouth to join the search, Aviation Week reported.

The search came a month after another suspected Russian submarine was spotted off Sweden’s Stockholm archipelago and as relations with the Kremlin are at their worst since the Cold War.

Britain scrapped its own maritime patrol aircraft after the cost cutting 2010 defence review, leading to warnings from defence chiefs that the country would be left reliant on others for aircraft to search its own waters.

The Nimrod spy planes had been mainstays of the RAF's reconnaissance fleet since the late 1960s and had a central role in anti-submarine warfare, when they were scrapped with an upgrade programme running nine years late and £800 million over budget.

Angus Robertson MP, SNP defence spokesman, whose constituency contains RAF Lossiemouth, said: “This is hugely embarrassing for the UK which is totally exposed without such critical maritime patrol assets. It is not the first time they have had to depend on the goodwill of allies to fill this massive capability gap.”

So much for being a "great power"...

 

[WessexEclectic]

Who are the British Military's real enemies?

The MoD and British Wasteofspace.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is not all that long ago that scenes of certain British military planes, some only part-completed, being broken up appeared in the media

 

[ainsworth74]

Scrapping Nimrod (without replacement), in my opinion, was tantamount to criminal negligence. Though with the meat clever that hit defence spending in 2010 you have to ask what would have been cut to keep it either from the defence budget or from another department's budget?

That being said the Telegraph does love a good scare story when it comes to defence matters so I'd always take what they say with a pinch of salt (defence appears to be their equivalent of the Daily Mail's cancer causing immigrants). For one, as far as I'm aware, no one has yet confirmed that a Russian Submarine (or anyone else's) was actually in the area. Seeing a periscope doesn't actually mean it was a periscope. If all the many 'periscopes' that were seen by members of the Royal Navy in 1982 had actually been submarines then most of the task force would probably have been sunk!

Secondly the UK can patrol its territorial waters but prosecuting a possible submerged contact is a very difficult undertaking that even the best (the US mostly) struggle with so I'm not surprised we reached out for some extra help (even if we still had Nimrod I suspect we would have called for help, it really is that tough). There's a reason that every Tom, Dick and Harry wants a submarine for their navy.

Finally if there were an actual threat to the UK the Royal Navy and the RAF are perfectly capable of mounting a very strong defence but in the absence of a tangible threat, beyond possible Russian submarines poking their nose in places they shouldn't, it makes more sense for them to be out and about being useful.

Just my two pence.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Putin sees anything that will re-establish Russia's position as a military force on the world's stage that will be reckoned with (where it suits his purposes) was recently revealed by the fiasco of the Russian submarine being hunted by Sweden.

He claims solidarity with his link to the Middle East in Syria which Russia has long supported, but would rather put military boots on Ukrainian soil rather than allowing his forces "to take holiday leave" (their phrase...not mine) in northern Syria against the forces of ISIL.

 

[Greenback]

Scrapping Nimrod (without replacement), in my opinion, was tantamount to criminal negligence. Though with the meat clever that hit defence spending in 2010 you have to ask what would have been cut to keep it either from the defence budget or from another department's budget?

I agree that Nimrod should have been retained as we have a very long coastline and we are still reliant on the seas in many ways. Though I have no more idea than you what should have been cut instead.

the UK can patrol its territorial waters but prosecuting a possible submerged contact is a very difficult undertaking that even the best (the US mostly) struggle with so I'm not surprised we reached out for some extra help (even if we still had Nimrod I suspect we would have called for help, it really is that tough). There's a reason that every Tom, Dick and Harry wants a submarine for their navy.

I think you are correct in that politically at least, inviting NATO countries to join in would have been in keeping with the co-operative nature that the organisation aspires to!

Finally if there were an actual threat to the UK the Royal Navy and the RAF are perfectly capable of mounting a very strong defence but in the absence of a tangible threat, beyond possible Russian submarines poking their nose in places they shouldn't, it makes more sense for them to be out and about being useful.

Just my two pence.

Once again, I think you're spot on.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I agree that Nimrod should have been retained as we have a very long coastline and we are still reliant on the seas in many ways. Though I have no more idea than you what should have been cut instead.

Well, I'll put my two pennyworth in and suggest ...Trident?

 

[Yew]

I agree that Nimrod should have been retained as we have a very long coastline and we are still reliant on the seas in many ways. Though I have no more idea than you what should have been cut instead.
.

What I never understood is why, after their refurbishment was almost completed (at least for some aircraft? IIRC 2 where pretty much done, and the other two aroudn half done), they where cut up, surely there is an empty hangar or warehouse somewhere they could have been stuck in, in case their capacity was required in the future.


I suppose it was due to the beleif that there was no longer a threat from russia, but that the main threat was from Islamic extremists. As this decision was made years before the annexation of the Crimea, and the subsequent reescalation of tensions between Russia and the west

 

[ainsworth74]

Well, I'll put my two pennyworth in and suggest ...Trident?

Trident is the ultimate deterrent and defence of the United Kingdom. As long as we have it no one can risk ever actually compromising our territorial integrity or threatening our existence.

This isn't to suggest that we scrap it and next morning there's a different flag flying over Number 10 but I'm hesitant to scrap something which is a keystone of our defence. I am also far from convinced that scrapping Trident would actually see (or in the context of this discussion have seen) any more money being made available for conventional forces such as maritime patrol aircraft. Personally I rather feel that the Treasury would have been laughing all the way to the bank...

 

[Greenback]

I personally think that an ultimate deterrent is of little use these days, and that the expense of having one is unjustified.

I don't think keeping Nimrod in an empty hangar would have been a solution. They either had to be kept flying or got rid of. A halfway house type of solution would not have worked.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Trident is the ultimate deterrent and defence of the United Kingdom. As long as we have it no one can risk ever actually compromising our territorial integrity or threatening our existence.

I see my post has been deleted. So here it is again.

No government will ever risk launching Trident against an enemy. Nuclear deterrence is more provocative than it is protective, and serves no purpose in this world. Trident is an expensive plaything for MPs and the MoD that ultimately will put us at more risk, both militarily and environmentally.

 

[ainsworth74]

I personally think that an ultimate deterrent is of little use these days, and that the expense of having one is unjustified.

And I disagree with you as whilst I might be tempted to agree that right now it is of little use I am unwilling to agree that this will always be true. We could get rid of it now and be safe but ten years down the line we might realise that actually it could be quite useful to have again. However the cost then and the time taken could well mean that it's neigh on impossible to rebuild.

Equally ten years from now the status quo might remain and we still won't need one. I'm just unwilling to put my chips all on one marker and to me, therefore, the cost whilst not cheap is worthwhile. But I can happily accept that for others the calculation leads to a different conclusion.

And seeing as this is the internet I'm not going to get rude and obnoxious about disagreeing with someone on the topic. Wait... Am I doing this wrong?

No government will ever risk launching Trident against an enemy.

Your evidence of this is? You can really not see any scenario which could result in using Trident?

 

[Oswyntail]

I personally think that an ultimate deterrent is of little use these days, and that the expense of having one is unjustified....

That is exactly the point - in a modern conflict, no one really knows what would happen or who would do what, so the whole policy has to be based on opinion. And these do differ. We do not know who we are deterring, so we don't know what deterrent is needed; we do not know where any military threat is likely to emerge, so we cannot tell whether to strengthen (or weaken) land, sea or air forces, or any combination.
What saddens and worries me is that we still get the impression that the three forces at the MoD are as interested in building up their own empires as in working out the answer to this conundrum. Perhaps, though, asking for help in areas we don't have covered is not a humiliation, weakness, or failure, but, rather, a sensible solution.

 

[St Rollox]

200,000 votes the other way at the referendum and the Russians could have had full use of a submarine base at Faslane.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You can really not see any scenario which could result in using Trident?

Three words: mutually assured destruction.

 

[ainsworth74]

Three words: mutually assured destruction.

Well quite that rather is the whole point as to why no one could ever risk an attack on such a scale as to lead to our destruction as they are assured of their own destruction.

 

[radamfi]

If owning nuclear weapons is essential for survival, what about the countries (i.e. almost all countries in the world) that don't have them?

 

[ainsworth74]

Well plenty of them have friends with nuclear weapons such as all the members of NATO or treaties/understandings that ensure their protection (i.e. South Korea, Japan and Australia can all rely on the United State's nuclear umbrella). For the rest there are probably plenty who would like nuclear weapons but can't afford them (such as Syria or possibly Egypt), others who don't feel the need because no one threatens them but if they did could afford to import the skills (for example Saudi Arabia I would put money on getting nuclear weapons if Iran does) and for the rest because they don't have any real enemies to worry about who have nuclear weapons or the means to overwhelm them conventionally (most of South America or Africa for instance).

 

[Greenback]

I see my post has been deleted. So here it is again.

No government will ever risk launching Trident against an enemy. Nuclear deterrence is more provocative than it is protective, and serves no purpose in this world. Trident is an expensive plaything for MPs and the MoD that ultimately will put us at more risk, both militarily and environmentally.

It was deleted for your own good, the deleted post was nothing like what you've now posted, which is quite acceptable!

I do agree with you, though, and with the sentiments of what was deleted as it happens, but I'm much to polite to actually post the same thing, lol!

And I disagree with you as whilst I might be tempted to agree that right now it is of little use I am unwilling to agree that this will always be true. We could get rid of it now and be safe but ten years down the line we might realise that actually it could be quite useful to have again. However the cost then and the time taken could well mean that it's neigh on impossible to rebuild.

I accept the point, but I don't see any future scenario in which it would be useful to have an independent nuclear deterrent.

And seeing as this is the internet I'm not going to get rude and obnoxious about disagreeing with someone on the topic. Wait... Am I doing this wrong?

Yes, evidently! And so am I!

That is exactly the point - in a modern conflict, no one really knows what would happen or who would do what, so the whole policy has to be based on opinion. And these do differ. We do not know who we are deterring, so we don't know what deterrent is needed; we do not know where any military threat is likely to emerge, so we cannot tell whether to strengthen (or weaken) land, sea or air forces, or any combination.

Quite so. It's just my opinion, but I'd quite like to see some examples of where an independent nuclear deterrent would be useful to have.

What saddens and worries me is that we still get the impression that the three forces at the MoD are as interested in building up their own empires as in working out the answer to this conundrum. Perhaps, though, asking for help in areas we don't have covered is not a humiliation, weakness, or failure, but, rather, a sensible solution.

I agree with this. perhaps having a combine defence force, as other countries have, would save money in the chains of command as well as streamline operations. We must be getting close to the levels where separate structures are unsustianable in terms of what we have on the front line, if we haven't got there already.

Well plenty of them have friends with nuclear weapons such as all the members of NATO or treaties/understandings that ensure their protection (i.e. South Korea, Japan and Australia can all rely on the United State's nuclear umbrella). For the rest there are probably plenty who would like nuclear weapons but can't afford them (such as Syria or possibly Egypt), others who don't feel the need because no one threatens them but if they did could afford to import the skills (for example Saudi Arabia I would put money on getting nuclear weapons if Iran does) and for the rest because they don't have any real enemies to worry about who have nuclear weapons or the means to overwhelm them conventionally (most of South America or Africa for instance).

I don't see why we can't come under the NATO nuclear umbrella, whereby all countries make a contribution to having the deterrent, which then helps to protect all. All we have at the moment is a massive cost of maintaining Trident at the expense of other parts of the defence budget, never mind the fact that public services are likely to be further decimated while we have this vanity project continuing.

As far as I can see, there's no advantage in having an independent deterrent, as I don't think we'd ever be in a position to even think about using it unilaterally. Yes, that's just my opinion again!

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't see why we can't come under the NATO nuclear umbrella, whereby all countries make a contribution to having the deterrent, which then helps to protect all. All we have at the moment is a massive cost of maintaining Trident at the expense of other parts of the defence budget, never mind the fact that public services are likely to be further decimated while we have this vanity project continuing.

I think just scrapping Trident and saying 'the French and the US have us covered' would not go down very well with the US at all. They are already, as far as I'm aware, less than pleased that the majority of NATO is spending below (often considerably) the agreed minimum spend on defence of 2% of GDP. One of their closest allies turning around and saying 'we don't need nukes because the US has us covered' would be an awful message to send. If the money saved was invested in conventional forces they might not grumble but if it was just treated as a saving or spent elsewhere (as it almost certainly would)...

But your second point is a very interesting one and one which I might be able to support. The idea of a NATO nuclear deterrent rather than three national deterrents providing NATO with a nuclear deterrent is very interesting to me.

It would be fraught with difficulties, for example what force structure would be adopted? We have a minimum credible deterrent of one sub with about 45 warheads on sixteen missiles. The US on the other hand has a full nuclear triad of submarine and land based missiles along with airborne bombs and cruise missiles totalling somewhere around 1,700 active warheads. Where would be acceptable to the US and also the rest of NATO? Could anyone persuade the US to even enter such an agreement!? Or could the US perhaps keep its own and the rest of NATO contribute to a NATO (minus US) deterrent? Then there's the chain of command issues and basing to think about as well.

But it is a very interesting idea for all the difficulties.

 

[radamfi]

I don't see why we can't come under the NATO nuclear umbrella, whereby all countries make a contribution to having the deterrent, which then helps to protect all. All we have at the moment is a massive cost of maintaining Trident at the expense of other parts of the defence budget, never mind the fact that public services are likely to be further decimated while we have this vanity project continuing.

As far as I can see, there's no advantage in having an independent deterrent, as I don't think we'd ever be in a position to even think about using it unilaterally. Yes, that's just my opinion again!

Do NATO countries actually officially 'own' these weapons, as I thought only a few countries are allowed to have them. For example, if Germany (not an official nuclear power) are contributing to the NATO umbrella, then doesn't that break the non-proliferation treaty?

Has the concept of being protected through NATO been presented to the British public? People seem to think that if you don't have Trident, there is no protection.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think just scrapping Trident and saying 'the French and the US have us covered' would not go down very well with the US at all. They are already, as far as I'm aware, less than pleased that the majority of NATO is spending below (often considerably) the agreed minimum spend on defence of 2% of GDP.

Why not just outsource the entire military to the US and just give them 2% of GDP in return? What is the point of small countries having a military when they are puny in comparison to the major world powers?

 

[WessexEclectic]

If owning nuclear weapons is essential for survival, what about the countries (i.e. almost all countries in the world) that don't have them?

Just like Iran wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes? If that truly was the case then why not develope Thorium reactors rather than the 'conventional' route of which a convienient by-product is weapons grade materiel?

Young men make wars, and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men. Courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace. And the vices of peace are the vices of old men. Mistrust and caution.

 

[ainsworth74]

Why not just outsource the entire military to the US and just give them 2% of GDP in return? What is the point of small countries having a military when they are puny in comparison to the major world powers?

The Estonian Army brought to you by the United State Army. That's quite an amusing thought

It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure it would work. It's one thing to, effectively, outsource nuclear deterrence but it would be a very brave government to completely outsource its entire military. What if you disagree with what the US considers defence priorities for your nation? What if relations between yourself and the US sour?

But it's certainly an interesting thought. I wonder what a US perspective might be. Would they rather, for example, Estonia maintained a small army and naval service of their own or that Estonia just gave them 2% of GDP per year and they provided the defence for Estonia.

 

[radamfi]

The Estonian Army brought to you by the United State Army. That's quite an amusing thought

It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure it would work. It's one thing to, effectively, outsource nuclear deterrence but it would be a very brave government to completely outsource its entire military. What if you disagree with what the US considers defence priorities for your nation? What if relations between yourself and the US sour?

But it's certainly an interesting thought. I wonder what a US perspective might be. Would they rather, for example, Estonia maintained a small army and naval service of their own or that Estonia just gave them 2% of GDP per year and they provided the defence for Estonia.

I think you have to assume that the US will always act on your best interests. If you are a member of NATO you are basically going along with the US anyway. And if Estonia disagrees with the US, the US is so much more powerful than Estonia could ever be, therefore what Estonia think is basically irrelevant. Estonia is so small it could never defend itself against, say, the whole Russian military.

 

[Greenback]

But your second point is a very interesting one and one which I might be able to support. The idea of a NATO nuclear deterrent rather than three national deterrents providing NATO with a nuclear deterrent is very interesting to me.

I don't think it;s fair to opt out of a deterrent and rely on France and the US to cover us. What I think is fair is that all NATO members finance a NATO deterrent together. I don't see why countries such as Belgium and Denmark benefit from the US, UK and French umbrella!

It would be up to the UK, US and France if they wanted to maintain their own deterrent as well as a NATO one. I'd be the first to suggest getting rid of ours!

As for the chain of command, it would require agreement from all the countries in NATO for it to be used. The treaty itself already allows that an attack on any of the countries in the alliance counts as an attack on them all, or so i believe, so the articles could be amended to provide for any nuclear attack to be responded to in kind with only the agreement of the three original nuclear powers.

This is all bag of the envelope stuff, though, as I only thought of it this afternoon!

Do NATO countries actually officially 'own' these weapons, as I thought only a few countries are allowed to have them. For example, if Germany (not an official nuclear power) are contributing to the NATO umbrella, then doesn't that break the non-proliferation treaty?

Has the concept of being protected through NATO been presented to the British public? People seem to think that if you don't have Trident, there is no protection.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Why not just outsource the entire military to the US and just give them 2% of GDP in return? What is the point of small countries having a military when they are puny in comparison to the major world powers?

I won't go into the last question in detail, but there are many good reasons for having a separate military force as opposed to a separate deterrent.

In terms of NATO owning weapons instead of states, then I don't really see any legal problem. Even if there was, the non proliferation treaty has hardly been a roaring success!

As for protection, it;s more the way that Polaris and Trident have been presented to the public by the media. I remember that during the Cold War NATO was very prominent when the defence of Western Europe against Soviet aggression was being discussed. I believe that sections of society feel that giving up an independent deterrent is the final nail in the coffin that was the British Empire, so it must be retained at all costs!

 

[Monty]

Defence is a topic close to my heart and is a bit of sore subject when it comes to the cuts it's currently bearing the brunt of. But what are we to do? The current government is currently trying to reduce the national debt and with an election coming up defence spending is hardly a vote winner. It's all very well saying that scrapping trident would solve all these problems but it just won't. For one the budget is seperate from the existing defence spending pot and if it was canned the money would only be siphoned off elsewhere never to be seen again. The Nimrod MR4 was unfortunately always going to be an early target as the project was so over due, over budget and dispite the first aircraft had made their first flights was years off from entering service. The real crime was scrapping it without a replacement, however it does look increasingly likely we will aquire the P-8 Poseidon in the near future. It of course doesn't help when the three services constantly bicker amoung each other fighting for funding.

 

[Jonny]

Trident is the ultimate deterrent and defence of the United Kingdom. As long as we have it no one can risk ever actually compromising our territorial integrity or threatening our existence.

This isn't to suggest that we scrap it and next morning there's a different flag flying over Number 10 but I'm hesitant to scrap something which is a keystone of our defence. I am also far from convinced that scrapping Trident would actually see (or in the context of this discussion have seen) any more money being made available for conventional forces such as maritime patrol aircraft. Personally I rather feel that the Treasury would have been laughing all the way to the bank...

It's also a massive liability because of the revenge it can bring. As about the only country that has the means and would possibly find it worthwhile (even then, low odds) would be Russia, I'm not over concerned - Uncle Vladimir might not be brilliant but he can't be any worse than the future Charles 3 (current Prince Charles). The trick is to get the white flag out in time. Let's face it, with little in the way of mineral resources left (and most of that being shale gas), why would anyone bother making much of an effort to invade Britain anyway?

 

[NotATrainspott]

The USA has the economies of scale to make a NATO nuclear deterrent possible. It would be more efficient for the UK and France to concentrate on conventional NATO forces and reduce the pressure on America to perform those tasks.

The United Kingdom doesn't have an independent nuclear deterrent because the United States can end it at any time. Parliament cannot vote to abolish the American, French, Chinese, Russian or whoever else's nuclear forces but Congress can vote to end US co-operation with the United Kingdom and thus end ours. The UK could not afford to build its own unique nuclear deterrent again after having lost the capability when it decided to use the American systems.

I also find it funny that this situation is exactly the same as the one that Better Together campaign presented as a problem to an independent Scotland. If the United Kingdom, in all its pooling-and-sharing-cooperation-better-together-federal-ness cannot manage to defend itself against real and present threats, that an independent Scotland could do no worse is not a good thing for the future of the Union. If the Republic of Ireland can afford to defend itself, and manage not to be attacked by Russia despite not being in NATO, I can't see why we would be any different.

 

[Greenback]

The United Kingdom doesn't have an independent nuclear deterrent because the United States can end it at any time. Parliament cannot vote to abolish the American, French, Chinese, Russian or whoever else's nuclear forces but Congress can vote to end US co-operation with the United Kingdom and thus end ours. The UK could not afford to build its own unique nuclear deterrent again after having lost the capability when it decided to use the American systems.

Actually that's quite true and is something I'd forgotten about!

I also find it funny that this situation is exactly the same as the one that Better Together campaign presented as a problem to an independent Scotland. If the United Kingdom, in all its pooling-and-sharing-cooperation-better-together-federal-ness cannot manage to defend itself against real and present threats, that an independent Scotland could do no worse is not a good thing for the future of the Union. If the Republic of Ireland can afford to defend itself, and manage not to be attacked by Russia despite not being in NATO, I can't see why we would be any different.

Interesting, and a point of view that was very much in my mind when I thought of the NATO deterrent! Surely we are better together in NATO?!

 

[radamfi]

If the Republic of Ireland can afford to defend itself, and manage not to be attacked by Russia despite not being in NATO, I can't see why we would be any different.

Similarly the Swedes and Austrians must obviously fear for their lives.