By Bill Kincaid15 Nov 2004
Continuing operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere have brought to the fore, for
|
Extended articles only on:
www.rusi.org/defencesystems
Professor David Kirkpatrick, Professor of Defence Analysis, University College London
The future direction that UK MoD equipment procurement may take and its effect on partnering between MoD and industry
Robin Ashby, Director, UK Defence Forum
Big winners and small winners, sound and fury, hi-tech equipment and low-tech entry searches – and more – at Farnborough 2004
The conclusions of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s study into the threats to national and coalition air forces and action required
Exploiting 21st Century Technology: The US Navy Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft
Martin Fisher, CEO International Aerospace and Defence Network Ltd
The driving factors behind the recent US Navy’s decision on its future multi-mission maritime aircraft |
many nations, the question of balance between ‘boots on the ground’ and hi-tech weaponry. No nation, not even the US, can afford all it wants for both warfighting and post-conflict operations. A balance has to be struck.
Medium Weight Forces
A major land issue within this balance is the aspiration to move to medium-weight forces. All are agreed that forces need to be quickly deployable over strategic distances, but with greater punch than light forces have at present. We are delighted to publish the views of the Chiefs of Staff of the armies of France, Germany, Sweden and the UK. All agree on what is required, but how to get there is the real issue. As General Applegate points out, a medium force is not just about armoured vehicles, but about getting a balanced and effective force to the right place at the right time. Armoured vehicles are just one element, albeit a very important element, of a medium force. Many European nations are making major efforts to transform their forces from static, Cold War organisations to strategically deployable, flexible formations. None more so than Sweden, which has reduced its force structure and legacy systems (by some 75 per cent it is said) to invest in new technology. In particular, it plans to field a firstgeneration, end-to-end network-centric defence capability by 2010. This capability will include new armoured vehicles.
France and Germany, too, seem to be well down the acquisition road to medium-weight armoured vehicles. In UK, however, there is much confusion. The UK MoD seems to be planning on the replacement of both the old 430 series and the CVR reconnaissance vehicles with one development programme – the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) – aimed at producing a family of medium-weight vehicles, all by 2009. Impossible. FRES needs a radical rethink and it needs it quickly. Perhaps an objective look at what other countries, other than the US, are doing would not come amiss.
And what of the longer term? Brigadier Moore points out the importance of Challenger and Warrior in postwarfighting operations in Iraq, giving his brigade the ability to move relatively freely in hostile urban areas. Do NATO nations really think that they can replace heavy forces with medium ones? Perhaps this longer-term issue needs rethinking too.
Air Power
The close relationship between the Royal Air Force and the US Air Force is highlighted in Bruce Lemkin’s article on interoperability, a subject of high importance. Air power is vital and its contribution, from both land bases and aircraft carriers, is emphasised by Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge and Commodore Steve Jermy. Projection of power from the sea is provided largely from high-performance aircraft launched from aircraft carriers. The UK and French plans for future carriers are central to this capability, but there are other aspects to it: two of these, discussed in this issue, are the US decision on its new multi-mission maritime aircraft and the UK move from airborne early warning to airborne surveillance and control.
Governments and the Defence Industry
One of the major planks of the UK’s Smart Acquisition initiative is the new relationship with industry. While there have been instances of improved relationships, there have been as many, if not more, examples of continued counterproductive confrontations. Many in industry privately voice the opinion that things are no better than when Smart Acquisition was launched.
The UK experience is not unique and, in this issue, we examine the state of relationships between governments and the defence industry in Australia, France, Japan and the UK. Each has a different approach; each has different concerns. Of particular interest to many readers of RUSI Defence Systems is the future of the UK defence industry, and we present contrasting and, I hope, contentious views in our contention@rusi.org section. You may violently agree or disagree with some, or even all, of the views expressed.
Debate
Open discussion is healthy. RUSI Defence Systems welcomes contributions from any reader with a useful viewpoint on any equipment or acquisition subject, but particularly on the subject of the future of the defence industry – in the UK or elsewhere. Why not email us at contention
Add your comments
Copyright © 2008 RUSI