Minister for defence procurement Harriett Baldwin

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:26 am

A paragraph of sarcastic refusal to answer a simple question.

The question was whether HMS Queen Elizabeth, one of the two aircraft carriers on order, will actually be handed over to the Royal Navy for sea trials this spring as promised.

“What I can’t give the committee is the specific days of the week because no-one knows exactly what day of the week she will move from where she is currently into her sea trial process and then sail down to Portsmouth.

She wasn't asked for the day of the week, nor the week, nor the month. She was asked for the quarter. She was, I suspect, asked whether the date had slipped from March 20th. Perhaps she should have been asked for the year, at this rate.

When it's actually handed over to the Royal Navy for sea trials we can bump the thread and comment on the obfuscation she gave.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:30 am

It's now a serious question whether we can afford her planes, or to run her.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:49 am

The whole notion of buying F-35s for these carriers is lunacy. If we don't build them, what's the point? Where's the benefit? Whose defence contractors and engineering capability gets supported?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:38 am

I agree with your criticisms. I'm guessing the Eurofighter is not capable of carrier operations and the F-35 is apparently very good.

The horrible thing is that despite my comment about not being able to afford her, we may actually need her. And her sister ship.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:14 am

Need in what sense? Can you describe any scenario in which an aircraft carrier - any aircraft carrier - can be used in a defensive role, where land-based facilities couldn't do exactly the same job?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:27 am

Deterrence against Russia and protection of sea lanes, especially in the N. Atlantic, but yeah, I agree they are not in themselves defensive units. Unfortunately I think we entering a time where we need to boost Armed Forces (naval and air mostly) and keep a nuclear deterrent. Traditionally we have not done so, and it will be expense we maybe cannot afford at all but I think the times that dangerous.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:35 am

Surely if you retain the nuclear deterrent then you can reduce the Armed Forces to coastguard and civil insurrection protection. There's no role for a deep-sea capability, none for the RAF, the army could come down to 30,000 infantry based in the large cities. If the country is attacked by a foreign power then there's a nuclear response, if it's attacked by criminals then there's courts for those who survive the firefight.

The middle ground, deploying armed forces other than Trident beyond the nation's frontier, is an offensive capability. It's always been used as an offensive capability since the end of conscription. It's never once been used as a defensive force when deployed abroad and I can't see how it could be - can you?

Northern Ireland is not abroad, sadly - maybe Brexit will let them join Eire, retain the benefits and avoid a customs border through Puckoon.

The times are dangerous because we keep on killing foreigners in their own countries. That's the cause, and retaliatory asymmetrical pinprick terror attacks back here are the natural and obvious consequence - quite possibly the desired outcome, Western governments being what they are. It gives us an excuse to expand our military while being, in itself, comparatively inconsequential.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:35 pm

Clodhopper;1506154 wrote: Deterrence against Russia and protection of sea lanes, especially in the N. Atlantic, but yeah, I agree they are not in themselves defensive units. Unfortunately I think we entering a time where we need to boost Armed Forces (naval and air mostly) and keep a nuclear deterrent. Traditionally we have not done so, and it will be expense we maybe cannot afford at all but I think the times that dangerous.

What do you mean we haven't done so we clung on to the trappings of empire and large armed forces when bankrupt after ww2 through the fifties and sixties to the point that come the seventies we were totally bankruopt and going hand in hand to the IMF for a bailout and crwling to the eu to let us in. Trident is bugger all use against terrorists and the cost means we have no money left for conventional forces even thye americans have scaled down their submarine fleet - one reason they are so keen on us keeping at least some semblence of a nuclear fleet. If it's used we are all dead so what's the point? After the fall of the soviet union there might have been a chance of disarmament but it was blown away in the demented realpolitik of the last thirty years or so. They might be useful against the argentinians again past experience would tend to suggest we can't count on our so called special relationship if it might harm commercial interests elsewhere.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:31 am

Well, we will probably need more coastal patrol and fishery protection vessels as well. But the carriers are built (or nearly so) and the planes partly bought. It's not the ISIS threat that concerns me here - quite correct that Trident and carriers are irrelevant to that issue. It's Putin that mainly concerns me, especially if the EU crumbles.

Traditionally, going back hundreds of years, we have always massively cut Armed Forces after conflicts. Keeping such a big force and conscription after WW2 was the exception (and shows why traditionally the forces were cut to the bone after conflicts!) However, we are an island and our Navy has practically ceased to exist. That doesn't seem too great an idea to me in dangerous times, given it takes at least three years to build a big ship. Point is we don't know what's round the corner let alone what we will face in 2 years when we actually brexit and Trump has had time to do real damage.

Hope they've plenty of cold weather gear. I suspect they were built with an eye to intervention in hot climates and in fact they'll spend a lot of their time close to the Arctic Circle.

edit: And while I agree the Army can go down to very low numbers (though it pretty much is...) Naval and Air power is important, I think. I consider it a vital strategic interest to be able to protect our own airspace and the N.Atlantic sea lanes to the US and Canada. (Food). I don't think the threat of the nuclear option is always appropriate. And Trump is no-one's ally but his own.

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:50 am

This is to deter Russia from what?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:04 am

More Georgias and Ukraines, is the first thing that springs to mind. The Baltic States are petrified of him, heck, the whole of E.Europe is petrified of him, and having seen a documentary that popped in to visit the KGB cellars in one of them, I think it was Estonia, I'm not surprised and it doesn't comfort me that protecting his ethnic compatriots is the excuse for invasion - it was Hitler's excuse too.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and he's had absolute power for a looooong time now.

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:24 am

And what has that to do with the defence of the United Kingdom?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:33 pm

1) We have commitments to NATO allies, and that is a core part of our defence because they also have commitments to us that can't be fulfilled if they are overrun.

2) Defence of the country does not start at the borders, it starts preferably well outside them

3) Appeasement of dictators (and Putin is a de facto dictator) rarely works. If we wait til he gets to the borders we'll have lost good allies who didn't want or deserve to be back under Russian oppression and will not be impressed by our inaction while they were overrun and ruined to allow Putin's mates to get richer. He needs to be opposed further forward with committed allies, the E.Europeans are certainly committed and Ukraine seems the current front line.

4) Involvement in European Defence is still something we are committed to, and will be after brexit unless negotiations fail. It's one of the few negotiating cards we have. EU sanctions are a major part of the current response to the invasion of the Ukraine, but after that we need to have enough military to make him think twice. Defence of our NATO allies IS defence of the UK, and I don't think Putin would go nuclear unless Russia itself were invaded. So we need a deterrence a level below nuclear, and two aircraft carriers fit that scenario pretty well imo.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:40 am

It's an indication of the corruption of language that's gone on, that you describe these realpolitik matters as "defence". They're offence. They're waging war beyond the homeland. If it's done for treaty reasons then the treaty is an agreement to wage war beyond the homeland. It may all be something you want Britain to engage in, but don't call it defence. All this "fight them on their home ground" stuff is why the Middle East is in chaos.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:44 am

Clodhopper;1506154 wrote: Deterrence against Russia and protection of sea lanes, especially in the N. Atlantic, but yeah, I agree they are not in themselves defensive units. Unfortunately I think we entering a time where we need to boost Armed Forces (naval and air mostly) and keep a nuclear deterrent. Traditionally we have not done so, and it will be expense we maybe cannot afford at all but I think the times that dangerous.

A bigger threat to our shores, since e are an island with a vast coastline is drug smuggling and protecting the north sea oil rigs from attack neither of which a ballistic missile submarine is good for. We're keeping trident at the expense of our conventional forces and what a pity we scrapped the nimrod fleet before we had a replacement.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:52 am

spot;1506439 wrote: It's an indication of the corruption of language that's gone on, that you describe these realpolitik matters as "defence". They're offence. They're waging war beyond the homeland. If it's done for treaty reasons then the treaty is an agreement to wage war beyond the homeland. It may all be something you want Britain to engage in, but don't call it defence. All this "fight them on their home ground" stuff is why the Middle East is in chaos.

Corruption or development? Defence and realpolitik have always been intertwined, especially for an island where defence at the border beaches is likely to be too late and involves defence of national waters (as alluded to by gmc) N.Atlantic sea lanes and airspace. These concepts are all defensive, not offensive in scope. They do not include the invasion of Russia.

They aim to deter Russian aggression through a defensive alliance which requires each to aid the other in the event of an attack on any member state. It's actually very hard for us to provide direct military support in Eastern Europe:

The Baltic is not somewhere you want to put a blue water Navy, in particular capital ships, which makes the Army's and RAF's supply lines long and difficult. The Black Sea isn't much better, especially with Russian control of the Crimea, but a supply line through France and the Mediterranean might be possible, working with Turkey and the SE European states.

Either way not straightforward or cheap.

A bigger threat to our shores, since e are an island with a vast coastline is drug smuggling and protecting the north sea oil rigs from attack neither of which a ballistic missile submarine is good for. We're keeping trident at the expense of our conventional forces and what a pity we scrapped the nimrod fleet before we had a replacement.

Agree about Nimrod.

I wonder if what we will need more of is some sort of modern Corvette or armed Coastguard vessel?

Do you think we should ditch our nuclear deterrent? I still think on balance at present it's worth it but I do know what you mean by at the expense of conventional. Even the little we have is minimally maintained and creaking.

War is to be avoided....

Which sort of brings us to cyber and media warfare. I'm fairly convinced that the range of accusations now suggest that he has been using cyber attacks and I know he has tried to use the BBC Have Your Say threads because I've been there when they've turned up to defend Putin (it was at the time of the downing of the KLM flight) using alt facts and tactics that look awfully familiar from Trump. More recently I've seen comments suggesting I'm not the only one who has spotted them and it's happened many times since. I know it's hard to be sure of anything online but they aren't Brits, though their English is good.

What does cyber defence actually involve? Are there unbreakable defenses or do you have to rely on deterrence?

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:20 am

The invasion by Russians of the British Isles is sheer fantasy, you must recognize that. If it were to happen then it would trigger a full retaliatory British nuclear attack against Russian centres of population. Nobody in Russia would put their country in that position. Other than that, why on earth would a Russian commander order such an invasion? Short of genocide and repopulation there's no short-term or long-term benefit. Military ocupations do not bring any financial profit. I just cannot see why you're putting this straw argument up as though it supports your idea that we should have an offensive military capability able to fight abroad. How on earth does it help?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:07 am

I think starving us out would be a more likely approach than invasion, but that's not the whole issue. Defence of the oil rigs as gmc points out is important, defence of fishing rights. There's all sorts of levels of brinkmanship that can be played short of full armed conflict, affecting our trade and economy among other things and Putin does not play by EU rules or diplomatic conventions as the cyber stuff suggests. He HAS shown a militarily aggressive side several times and Russia has been involved with murder on our streets not long ago. It's defence of vital interests as well as land.

I grant you that if we abandoned NATO and stepped back altogether politically we could cut the military to a Coastguard and Air Force and probably no-one would invade for the foreseeable, so from the point of view of the most basic interpretation of defence we don't need carriers or much of a navy and the army would be completely redundant. But if Defence includes defence of interests and the ability to fulfill treaty commitments and deterrence, then we need more. That's all before we get to any form of attack.

How far can we depend on Trump with NATO? The balance to the Russian nuclear arsenal has always been the American ditto. Given reports of our Trident going off course I'm a little concerned, and I've long wondered as to the state of the Russian arsenal. I've a suspicion we'd both be playing a horrible sort of Russian roulette: does the missile explode on launch, fly straight, explode randomly in flight, fail to explode, or hit the target and explode? If our and the French nuclear threat is sufficient to deter Russian strikes, then we don't need the USA....(and yes, that is realpolitik speculation

)

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:17 am

Firstly, if Russia is killing people on the streets of Britain then our bloody armed forces here are obviously doing sod all to prevent it.

I agree that local coastal defences are vital. They stop smuggling, trafficking, they rescue twat American pensioners from uncontrolled yachts and they deal with anyone trying to take over an oil platform, not that it happens. Sinking hostile navies in home waters is why we deploy land-based cruise missiles, it is not the job of an aircraft carrier or the air force.

If you want to prevent a blockade of merchant shipping, put that on the list of triggers for Armageddon and nobody will try it. The list should include every act jeopardizing our national integrity. If you fire enough Tridents, some will do their job. They deter armed nation-state aggression against whatever you've said you'll fire them in response to. If you want to include Latvia under your nuclear umbrella and guarantee its border then by all means do that, but I suspect you'll not stay in government once an outraged British electorate responds. Guaranteeing the Latvian border is not the job of the United Kingdom. If it's a part of our NATO responsibility then the sooner we cancel our membership the better, it's how world wars start. Twice, so far.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:03 am

NATO was an effective counter to the USSR for decades. Russia, though weaker, is still militarily more powerful than any of us individually. We probably don't need the Americans if our and the French nuclear capability is as claimed, but I consider Putin a genuine threat to his neighbours and if he succeeds there I don't see his appetite being sated. Best oppose him as far forward as possible. I grant you that is realpolitik, but I don't see that as separate from defence these days. Let alone the chance for millions to live in a society they have the chance to make much more truly free than Putin's alt fact fed people.

Mind you, I think your future vision for the defence of the UK or whatever is left of it after brexit and its consequences begin to work out is more likely than it was before the vote, simply because the chances of us having an isolationist government and no money seem so much higher than they were. (Quite what an independent Scotland that rejoined (or never left) the EU would look like after 16.8 million English try to move there I'm not sure, but that's another thread)

I was thinking about this last night, and realised one of the issues I have comes down to a phrase I used, "the foreseeable." The trouble is, the foreseeable is so bloody short these days. I can't recall a time when it's been shorter. No one knows what brexit means, the EU has enough problems to cause collapse if they can't manage them and brexit simultaneously, the USA is having a meltdown and who knows what will emerge and I regard Putin as a clear and present danger.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:29 pm

Clodhopper;1506410 wrote: More Georgias and Ukraines, is the first thing that springs to mind. The Baltic States are petrified of him, heck, the whole of E.Europe is petrified of him, and having seen a documentary that popped in to visit the KGB cellars in one of them, I think it was Estonia, I'm not surprised and it doesn't comfort me that protecting his ethnic compatriots is the excuse for invasion - it was Hitler's excuse too.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and he's had absolute power for a looooong time now.

And just what did anyone do to protect Georgia, Crimea & Ukraine from being annexed? Absolutely nothing. The world just let Russia move in with no more resistance other than a bit of shouting to say "That's not nice". Just what point is a strong military if it's not going to be used anyway? What is ridiculous is scrapping the air resources but investing in shipping, so that we end up up with situation that we actually have of having an aircraft carrier, with no aircraft to put on it.

Having a horrendous budget for the White Elephant that is Trident is also ridiculous. The claim that it has been an effective deterrent is a joke. Just what sort of deterrent has it been. When has there been a time when we have not been involved in one war or another? Did it act as a deterrent then? Claiming it is a deterrent is no more valid that someone with a tin foil hat claiming the tin foil hat has kept him safe from aliens taking over his mind. While it is true that no aliens have taken over his mind (questionable), there is no evidence to demonstrate that the tin foil hat has anything to do with this.

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:40 pm

I don't see the nuclear deterrent as a means of deterring a foreign government from invading or destroying this country's strategic interests, I don't think we face that possibility. I think it provides sufficient reassurance to the population that we can safely dismantle a wartime-strength military to a small enough body capable of defence against civil agitation and criminal activity. In achieving that it's very cost-effective.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:18 am

And just what did anyone do to protect Georgia, Crimea & Ukraine from being annexed? Absolutely nothing.

Sanctions, which really are hurting the Russian economy especially combined with a low oil price. European attitudes hardened a lot with the downing of the KLM flight. Apart from anything else it pretty comprehensively refuted the claim (used in all the cases you mention) that the Russians were just protecting their people when they sent forces in (usually while denying they were sending forces in). However, it's taken time for the pattern to be discerned and we had no treaty obligations to Georgia iirc. We DO have commitments to NATO allies.

The planes have been arriving and the crews have been working up skills in the US, I believe. But agree that it being out of sync with the ship seems unhelpful.

While I agree that we could retreat under a nuclear umbrella in the way spot suggests, I don't think it would be in our strategic best interests. It is however a much more realistic prospect if brexit impoverishes the country and we need the money more elsewhere. Pretty much everything now depends on brexit. If it goes badly all bets are off everywhere about everything. If it goes well we find out what living in a far right fantasy land is like.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:46 pm

Have the sea trials started yet?

(The answer is No, if anyone wondered).

The last day of Spring, as the UK's Metrological Office measures these things, is May 31st.

Presumably Harriett Baldwin will just say it's no longer her Department.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:19 am

Bloody Harriett Bloody Baldwin's sneer-sneer aren't-I-clever remark, “What I can’t give the committee is the specific days of the week because no-one knows exactly what day of the week she will move from where she is currently into her sea trial process and then sail down to Portsmouth, came to pass today. Well after mid-summer, after the shortest day, not in the Spring at all. HMS Queen Elizabeth, if it did move, moved today. Sea Trials will now commence. The world would be a better place if it were scrapped instead, by which I do not mean sold to a foreign government.

Sarcastic refusal to answer a simple question, that's what I called it.

No, Harriett, it wasn't clever. It wasn't funny. It was a lie, and damn your miserable ministerial hide for thinking you can laugh it off. You're paid to be honest, helpful and efficient.