Once more unto the breach (again)

Reading the revelations this week in The Times and elsewhere about the current overspending disaster that has befallen Britain’s Defence budget, it was difficult to escape the conclusion that Defence is a no-win item.

When you think about it – apart from the chaps (and chapesses) that you inevitably need for national ceremonial duties and state occasions for prestige and tourism reasons – all aspects of Defence strategy and planning are basically an exercise in trying to predict your requirements. i.e. for future contingencies which hopefully may never happen, by procuring and maintaining hardware (and the military personnel to operate it) which, almost by definition, will already be obsolete before it becomes operational.

Defence is inherently unpopular because fundamentally it’s a ‘cash out’ activity, not a revenue generating one.

Although technically and historically ‘defence of the realm’ has always been deemed to be the first priority of government – particularly because of its ‘hopefully never to be needed’ aspect – those most concerned with the citizens’ hardships of everyday living can only regard the vast cost  involved in retaining a worthwhile military capability as money ill-spent which otherwise could have gone towards alleviating poverty and/or improving transport infrastructure and the NHS, or else sorting umpteen other problems including the housing crisis, obesity, education, multiculturalism, crime and national flood defences (to name but a few).

All the above comes before you even consider the chaos of running your military.

Things begin to get really puzzling, frustrating and head-shakingly absurd when you dig down into how the military works. (Or doesn’t, if you take that extreme view). I’ve had some insight into the realities from occasionally attending military gatherings under the guise of my involvement in charitable activities.

It won’t surprise anyone that, if you talk to any senior Naval officer, what Britain needs is a strong Navy with minor add-ons from the RAF and Army. Or that if you talk to anyone from the RAF, what the country obviously needs is a strong RAF with minor add-ons from the Navy and Army. Or that if you talk to the Army, what Britain really needs is a strong Army with just a bit of Navy and RAF to convey it to where it needs to go.

All irreconcilable, of course.

Add to that the fact that in peacetime – just like with the rest of the population – those fine young men and women that join the Navy inevitably need the prospect of career structures, opportunities, potential promotions (and all that goes with them) in order to make life at sea an attractive proposition.

That’s why, never mind the – you’d think obvious – theoretical line-up of one captain per ship and then a thrifty small number of seniors above them (at admiral level and above) to strategise and take the big decisions, Britain has reached the logically ridiculous position of having about five times as many ‘admirals and above’ officers within its ranks as it has ships!

Currently the Navy is basking in the glory of many years ago now having persuaded the nation to commit to building two vast new aircraft carriers [I don’t have any more idea about the strategic thinking behind them than you do] but that’s almost irrelevant anyway because – as with all projects costing mega-money – once committed, you have to keep going to the bitter end whatever the attendant problems, e.g. the inevitable exponentially-rising additional costs (overspends) that arise simply because of the length of time it takes to get from order to completion.

One revelation this week that made me smile was that the Navy top brass had deliberately chosen the names of these two new aircraft carriers (Her Majesty’s Ships Queen Elizabeth and The Prince of Wales) because they reckoned, correctly, that Britain’s skittish politicians would find it very hard indeed to revisit, reverse or even suspend any decision to proceed with them when their names had such direct and strong royal connotations.

And, of course, while we’re at it, let’s ignore for present purposes the fact – on one or the other, possibly even both of these monsters – the American fighter-bombers that have been ordered to go with them are now either going to cost billions more than originally thought, or else (it has now been discovered) for technical reasons will never actually be able to land upon their deck(s).

In other words, it’s beginning to look as though by 2020-something Britain may be the proud possessor of at least one sensationally big aircraft carrier sailing majestically around the world without any aircraft on it!

Separately we also learned this week that Russia has now developed a missile with the capacity to go so fast that no existing missile-defence system in the world will be able to cope. Not exactly what you want to hear when you’ve reached two-thirds of the way through commissioning two aircraft carriers so large that they’ll not only be unmissable targets but also now unable to defend themselves from missile attack should hostilities with Russia ever break out.

Let us not forget that all of the above doesn’t even scratch the surface of the issues surrounding the renewal of the Trident nuclear submarine programme or the competence (or otherwise) of everyone working within the Ministry of Defence, right up to the Secretary of State for Defence Michael Fallon, who are now working with a budgetary black hole the size of Africa and counting.

I’m just glad that, when it comes to pontificating on matters of Defence, I haven’t a clue what I’m talking about!