Nott's Revenge: Why the Tories hate the Royal Navy

[uk 75]

Many readers here are probably not old enough to have lived through the Falklands War of 1982
and may assume that the Conservative Party ought to be forever grateful to the Royal Navy for
saving Mrs Thatcher's Government.
The truth is, however, that those weeks in 1982 saw an elected Government made a fool of by serving
Military men, or to be precise, an Admiral.
For years since 1967 politicians had been safe in the knowledge that no major military operation outside
the UK could be conducted without the assistance of the United States, in fact the MOD had only recently
tried to get the Foreign Office to pay for the Falklands Patrol ship, HMS Endurance. Ministers imagined that
in the event of an Argentine invasion of the Falklands, the troublesome islands would be given up in a process
of UN supported negotiations like the Lancaster House agreement which had finally got rid to the awkward
Rhodesian White Government.
When a British Admiral told Mrs Thatcher that he could retake the Falklands by force and would put together a
Task Force, leading Tory Ministers, notably John Nott, saw their work unravelled.
From 1983 to the demise of the Tory Government in 1997, it was the job of successive Tory Defence Ministers
to claw back the budgetary gains given to the RN in the months following the Falklands. The end of the Cold
War saw the first major moves to return to the sort of RN envisaged by John Nott in 1981.
The Blair Government compounded enmity towards the RN by ordering two highly expensive carriers, which to add insult to injury would be built in Labour safe seats in Scotland and elsewhere.
When the Tories returned to power in 2010, the RN was in George and Dave's sights. Gordon Brown and British Aerospace had ensured that the carriers could not be axed. The incompetence of British Aerospace in the delivery of the ASTUTE and DARING TYPE 45 programmes added to the view in Tory circles that the RN could be bled to pay for the much more popular Royal Air Force and Army, who were seen daily on TV screens executing Government policy. TV coverage of the RN in contrast tended to dwell on problems with ships and their crews.
This policy was to be reinforced after the 2015 election. Apart from the TRIDENT SUCCESSOR programme the Royal Navy had little support in the Cameron Government.
Death by a thousand cuts will continue, helped by the clapped out showing the one "enemy fleet in being" off the shores of Syria. The new amity between Trump and Putin will only make matters worse for the RN.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The Tory 'wets' have always been a major problem, and not just with regards as to defence. They make RINOs in the U.S. look principled!

 

[kaiserd]

The Tory 'wets' have always been a major problem, and not just with regards as to defence. They make RINOs in the U.S. look principled!

I don't see a real meaningful divide (current & historic back to early Thatcher period) in the Conservative Party in this regard. Talk a big game to the voters but when faced with reality of what could be afforded cutting consistently and deeply; similar to the Republicans in the US after Reagan's unsustainable increase in defense spending (any increases in defense spending very modest and tied up directly with Falklands).
The difference in rhetoric and PR and reality and conservatives (UK & US) tendency towards rose tinted views of past glory periods very much at play in shaping perceptions.

 

[Hood]

Not really buying the story presented here for many reasons. The Army and RAF have bore just as heavy cuts in size and capability, currently we are probably the only European nation with a coastline that has no MPA capability, the gap will be plugged but its already been almost a seven year gap and counting.
I don't think the Tories hate the Navy, generally they hate everything that can't be sold off for profit and aids their shareholdings when they retire from "public service". They hate collecting taxes and spending any taxes they do collect. Their perfect RN would be a profit making privatised marine security company tendering its services and charging at least double the cost.

 

[Hobbes]

UK's not the only nation without an MPA capability. The Netherlands have sold their Orions without replacement.

 

[Void]

Neither the RAF or British Army stands out as a large or particularly well equipped force by international standards. Whatever favoritism may exist evidently does not buy much. Compared to say the Army, which has lost the ability to create new armoured vehicles and artillery domestically completely, the Navy doesn't seem to be doing that badly in terms of new kit. It's doubtful the Eurofighter will have a British successor either so the RAF doesn't have much to brag about either.

The British public doesn't want to pay the bill to be a global power and it's a democratic society. And a democracy with a stagnating economy and a heavy debt burden to boot. Something has to give. Like in most European countries British parties run (and win) promising to protect funding for the NHS, not defense.

 

[kaiserd]

Neither the RAF or British Army stands out as a large or particularly well equipped force by international standards. Whatever favoritism may exist evidently does not buy much. Compared to say the Army, which has lost the ability to create new armoured vehicles and artillery domestically completely, the Navy doesn't seem to be doing that badly in terms of new kit. It's doubtful the Eurofighter will have a British successor either so the RAF doesn't have much to brag about either.

The British public doesn't want to pay the bill to be a global power and it's a democratic society. And a democracy with a stagnating economy and a heavy debt burden to boot. Something has to give. Like in most European countries British parties run (and win) promising to protect funding for the NHS, not defense.

No British successor to the European Typhoon (Eurofighter if you will....)

 

[JFC Fuller]

The Nott cuts were not as dramatically reversed as many people claim they were. Some were rolled back but not in their entirety- the main thrust of what Nott was trying to achieve was to redirect money from the Navy to the RAF and this more or less happened (and rightly so in my opinion). The UK Armed Forces subsequently went on to enjoy the most sustained period of investment they had seen since the 1950s resulting in their almost complete modernisation by the mid-90s. Of course they were then subsequently cut-back significantly by multiple governments in the 1990s

The Conservatives have pegged UK defence spending at 2% of GDP, the economy grows and defence will get more money. The 2010 SDSR was an epic mistake that hacked the RAF to protect the Army- SDSR15 and subsequent decisions have largely reversed that decision and one can argue that it will soon be the strongest it has been in many years. The RN surface fleet is in utter crisis although the emerging carrier strike capability is beyond anything the RN has had since the 1960s.

There aren't many in senior MoD positions that care much for British industry- in fact many would use it less if they could but politics means they can't.

Hood mentioned Nimrod, seemingly with the intention of bashing the Tories, thats completely wrong. Nimrod is a case study in procurement fail. A stupid idea executed badly by the MoD, Senior Officers and industry. It was cancelled because it had once again blown out its budget and found itself begging for money just as the government had to cut spending (incidentally it was the Liberal Democrats that really pushed for the 8% cut and they wanted to got much further).

Finally: The Tories don't hate the Royal Navy, these bizarre theories are ridiculous and demonstrate a lack of understanding of how UK defence works and why historic policy decisions have been taken.

 

[uk 75]

Sorry, JFC I just enjoy putting up some bizarre stuff.
However, I can assure you that the Royal Navy has done itself no favours with the Conservatives and
if George O could have cancelled the carriers, they would have been toast.
It is also the case that apart from the SSN/SSBN force the Royal Navy does not enjoy much profile in
Tory circles where the RAF and Army are much better thought of.
Although the link back to Nott was a Trumpian technique, the basic problem faced by Nott is not much different
today, both in financial and strategic terms.

 

[Hood]

Hobbes,
Hadn't realised that sorry! Seems like the Norwegians are about to retire their Orions too, though with P-8 as the ultimate replacement.

JFC Fuller,
I don't think cancelling Nimrod MRA.4 was the wrong thing to do, it was never going to work out and BAe/ BAE Systems should have known that from the start. My point is that the decision to abandon the role entirely was a mistake, especially when you have an SSBN fleet to protect and given the usefulness for SAR (now itself given over to the private sector). It wasn't even as though they offered a Plan B (I don't call a Herk flying around a Plan B), folks assumed the P-8 would come along but I'm not sure at that time the Government really thought about that as anything more than a future possibility.
The other example I was going to use was the retirement of the Tornado F.3 fleet just as its constant upgrading had delivered its peak of operational efficiency as the Russian AF became resurgent in long-range sorties. I could add the plans to scrap the Sentinel fleet at a time when it was providing a valuable service no other RAF asset could provide in support of Army operations, a role the Nimrod had been pressed into doing and for which, sadly, ended in tragedy for unrelated reasons.

uk 75,
More than a whiff of conspiracy theory. I think you have to take both sides. Nott thought the MOD Navy Department's briefings were terrible. They were talking about convoy systems, GIUK Gaps and towed array ships, light carriers, helicopters, SSNs the whole works. Then Nott went to the US and the USN told him they had no plans to send any convoys to Western Europe as the whole concept made no sense with nuclear-tipped SSMs and ASMs. They would send fast ships alone to sneak through as best as they could. So he began doubting the Naval Staff really knew what they were talking about, to him they were preparing for a Battle of the Atlantic Mk.2 that wasn't going to happen like they always thought it would. He felt they were feeding him duff info and made his own mind up.
Whatever the pushes and pulling from political levers from 1955 to 1981, fundamentally the RN was still thinking in the same terms as 1950; protecting convoys and stopping the Soviet air and sea and submarine forces from getting to them.

Anyhow its not just the UK. A Norwegian member of Shipbucket has been lamenting his government's plans to retire the Skjold Class in favour of the F-35 and retire its six Ula Class subs, to be replaced by 4 newer subs, and replacing its minesweeper fleet with unmanned craft.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Hobbes,

I absolutely agree that the MPA capability should not have been abandoned outright, unfortunately it was a victim of multiple failings. The MRA4 programme had once again run out of money, to complete it would need yet more cash (apparently nobody quite knew how much) and this was discovered just as an SDR process that was run from a Downing Street sofa was beginning (whilst most in Downing Street were on holiday). Nimrod had to be cancelled and there was no immediate money available for a replacement, to say some key allies were very displeased and made their feelings clear would be an understatement- hence P-8.

Sentinel has always had the caveat that it will be kept as long as it is in use: for some reason the RAF is always willing to put its neck on the block but it always gets a last minute reprieve when it is still in use. I would add though that SDSR15 actually uplifted UK ISTAR significantly by committing to increasing the number of Shadows, procuring P-8, providing an enormous budget for an E-3D upgrade and additional crews for that airframe. Not to mention Protector.

We are going to have to get used to aircraft being retired at the peak of their operational efficiency; the same will be true of Tornado GR.4 and many US types. The modern approach of undertaking continuous upgrades just makes it inevitable.

If there is one thing I have learnt over the years its that decisions taken related to Defence are usually (there are exceptions- see the 2010 carrier conversion debacle) well informed and taken with good reason- even if that reason os not readily apparent to the public at the time.

 

[kaiserd]

Hobbes,

I absolutely agree that the MPA capability should not have been abandoned outright, unfortunately it was a victim of multiple failings. The MRA4 programme had once again run out of money, to complete it would need yet more cash (apparently nobody quite knew how much) and this was discovered just as an SDR process that was run from a Downing Street sofa was beginning (whilst most in Downing Street were on holiday). Nimrod had to be cancelled and there was no immediate money available for a replacement, to say some key allies were very displeased and made their feelings clear would be an understatement- hence P-8.

Sentinel has always had the caveat that it will be kept as long as it is in use: for some reason the RAF is always willing to put its neck on the block but it always gets a last minute reprieve when it is still in use. I would add though that SDSR15 actually uplifted UK ISTAR significantly by committing to increasing the number of Shadows, procuring P-8, providing an enormous budget for an E-3D upgrade and additional crews for that airframe. Not to mention Protector.

We are going to have to get used to aircraft being retired at the peak of their operational efficiency; the same will be true of Tornado GR.4 and many US types. The modern approach of undertaking continuous upgrades just makes it inevitable.

If there is one thing I have learnt over the years its that decisions taken related to Defence are usually (there are exceptions- see the 2010 carrier conversion debacle) well informed and taken with good reason- even if that reason os not readily apparent to the public at the time.

Agreed. Such decisions are almost always taken for very logical reasons after long periods of thought; ironically it often appears that more thought and analysis goes into cancelling projects then starting them in the first place. Now sometimes this logic can be flawed or overtaken by unforeseen events and it can be fun and illuminating to debate these aspects on sites like this one.

In retrospect the MRA4 project appears misguided and misconceived from day one but this view should tempered with the reality at the time it was originally selected there wasn't an off the shelf low risk high capability alternative (P-8) option (my recollection is that the most capable alternatives were warmed up Orions, with the US having cancelled their initial intended P-3 replacement some years before).

The large carriers were/are indirect victims of the fallout of the UK's involvement in Iraq. Ironically the forces most likely to actualy see extensive involvement in future force projection (airforce & navy) suffered most cuts. The Army, who (especially at its most senior levels) over promised and under performed in Iraq and Afghanistan was more protected from cuts despite being unlikely to be risked/ trusted in same way for a generation (significant troops on the ground now politically impossible, short of a major European war or something equally unthinkable/ unpalatable).

 

[Void]

No British successor to the European Typhoon (Eurofighter if you will....)

:

It's got British genes and significant British content.

This is more than what can be said of whatever will replace it. Which will be 100% American.

 

[kaiserd]

No British successor to the European Typhoon (Eurofighter if you will....)

:

It's got British genes and significant British content.

This is more than what can be said of whatever will replace it. Which will be 100% American.

The F-35 has significant UK content and hard to see beyond it as the eventual replacement of the UK's Tranch 1 Typhoons.
Unless the joint UK/France UCAV work unexpectedly gets more serious you are probably right about the eventual replacement for the Tranch 2 & 3 Typhoons. However as the UK currently seems more concerned with spitting in the eye of its European allies then doubt there would be a lot trust for major joint projects in the near term. And a solo British project would be a highly unrealistic fantasy.

 

[kaiserd]

However as the UK currently seems more concerned with spitting in the eye of its European allies then doubt there would be a lot trust for major joint projects in the near term.

Complete nonsense. The UK remains committed to European security (far more than I would like in fact) as demonstrated by the ongoing Anglo-French defence relationship (including collaborative Future Combat Air Systems) work and the deployment of British forces to Eastern Europe.

That said, if the EU regime remains committed to throwing its toys out of the pram because the British people voted in a free and fair election to detach themselves from said regime then my own view is that the UK should renege on all its security commitments to continental Europe.

You appear to equate/ confuse EU and NATO membership.
You appear to forget that per geography you are part of Europe if you like it or not.
Renaging on your (NATO not EU) security commitments would be shameful and so very clearly against your own national interests (if you abandon your European allies why shouldn't the US abandon you?). Your level and quality of analysis in consistent with much of what helped fuel the Brexit vote.
The UK Brexit vote was itself an act of self sabotage and self harm (national and for many of the communities who voted to leave) in a context of lies, prejudice and desperation.
The harmful impact of Brexit will also damage your EU neighbours so we're not exactly going to be happy about it or particularly well predisposed to the self righteous vandal in our midst.
Given England's (not the UK in general) sudden swerve to ultra nationalistic far right wing politics the idea of more not less international cooperation on core right wing tenants such as defence seems more delusion than grounded in reality. We'll see how long the projects with France survive, how much anybody is actualy willing/able to spend, and what actual in service systems they produce.

 

[Arjen]

I expect reality to intrude on the negotiations regarding Brexit. The UK benefits from close relations with its physical neighbours, all of which are part of the EU. Conversely, the EU would be foolish to cut ties with the UK. There will be some posturing on both sides, but ultimately, what needs to be achieved is a working relationship between UK and EU. Because it will benefit both, posturing be damned.

 

[Jemiba]

Topic locked !
It's starting to get too political, without reffering to the original theme.