Prosperity firmly linked to security
THE outlook for global security has rarely been so uncertain. Russian bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons are testing Britain’s sovereign airspace and the ability of the Royal Air Force to defend the nation with alarming regularity.
Supersonic Eurofighter Typhoon jet fighters are scrambled from their bases in Lossiemouth and Lincolnshire to ward off the Russian Bears – most recently intercepting the intruders off the Bournemouth coast.
Meanwhile, heavy fighting in Ukraine risks drawing Nato into a conflict. And Islamic State and the rogue Syrian regime have turned the Middle East into a battle zone and breeding ground f or extremists who openly threaten the Western way of life.
It is a dangerous and volatile era, one in which Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged Britain will be ‘the strongest pole in the tent’ in arguing for tougher sanctions against Moscow’s aggression.
However, some critics have warned that, if Russia attacked, the UK would fail to cope because the armed forces have been ‘decimated’ by a series of defence cuts.
Yet our politicians not only refuse to commit to growing or at least maintaining spending on defence at Nato’s mandated 2pc of GDP but are actively considering further cuts to Britain’s armed forces.
Military top brass, defence experts and trade unions are concerned that the expected Strategic Defence and Security Review, due sometime after May’s General Election, will again take the knife to the military’s capabilities.
The previous 2010 SDSR saw the famous and flexible Harrier retired before its time, leaving the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers without combat jets.
Britain also lacks a maritime patrol aircraft that can find and track Russian nuclear subma- rines encroaching UK waters. Nimrod was purpose-built for the job but ended up late and vastly over budget before being axed.
The numbers of soldiers are being cut while reservists are asked to pick up the slack. And the Royal Navy will soon be a small flotilla of high-tech surface ships and submarines.
Even earlier cuts have seen the number of front line combat jet squadrons come down from 30 at the time of the first Gulf War in 1991 to just eight today, with plans to shrink this to six by 2020.
This year marks the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, when ‘The Few’ fighter pilots of the RAF successfully defended Britain from the Nazi air assault.
But back in 1940, Spitfires and Hurricanes could be built in weeks and pilots trained in months. Today’s aviators take years to reach the cockpits of their Typhoons and Tornadoes, which themselves require years of development.
That is why critics warn cuts of one third would have a devastating effect on the ability of the Army, Royal Navy and RAF to maintain Britain’s national security.
We could not regenerate a national defence force quickly in the event of a major threat – even with the world’s second-largest aerospace industry.
That is why properly funded armed forces are needed. We are an island nation, no longer selfsufficient in either energy or food. Our sea and air links to trading partners must be kept free.
As one veteran defence analyst succinctly puts i t: if all our schools, hospitals, government offices and homes are a pile of ash and rubble there will be little point in ring-fencing other depart- mental spending. Ian King, the boss of defence contractor BAE Systems, warned earlier this week that the nation’s ‘security and prosperity cannot be disentangled’. Delivering national security is the first duty of any government, he added.
Our economic future, both individually and collectively, depends on safety and security. There can be no clearer message for politicians. Defence must be an issue for this election.
Making a killing MICHAEL Fallon will likely be at the heart of the future defence review should the Conservatives be elected in May and he remain in office.
But this week the Defence Secretary was looking to the past when he unveiled reforms of the procurement process for military equipment.
He flagged up a shocking and unacceptable culture where arms-makers claimed back costs including croquet, horse racing trips, motoring fines and even two magicians.
Fallon was right to castigate the previous regime of suppliers exploiting a lack of competitive pressure and transparency. Waste in defence contracts has previously been estimated at some £2.2bn a year.
Today’s defence sector is changing for the better, however.
As Ian King noted this week, partnership between government and industry is essential so that the armed forces get the equipment they need at a price the taxpayer can afford to bear over the long term.