A panel of experts believe the current economic situation will require the government to seriously re-think their defence spending options.
An expert panel of academics, government and industry, speaking at yesterday’s Demos/BAE Systems event at Labour party conference, have acknowledged the huge strains being placed on British Defence policy. Dr Tim Edmunds, senior defence lecturer at Bristol University, said this was because the Government “tries to have it all – which causes huge pressures on policy, organization and operations.”
Speaking about Trident, Bob Keen, head of government relations at BAE Systems, stressed his preference for a new submarine system to succeed the current Vanguard class but, questioned by Left Foot Forward, acknowledged that a modified version of Astute could be capable of serving as a nuclear deterrent platform but that such a move would represent a certain degree of trade off between costs and capabilities.
On Monday Left Foot Forward reported that replacing Trident with Astute could save £45 billion.
He said that given the unpredictability of future threats and the constrains on government spending, future defence industry work would have to set a higher priority on the importance of flexibility and modularity so as to allow future systems to serve multiple purposes.
To limit such a trade off, Mr Keen added that though he did not advocate it, should such a change occur it should be to modify Astute from its current non-nuclear armed status to an intercontinental ballistic missile equipped submarine, as opposed to a nuclear warhead armed tomahawk cruise missile submarine. Crucially, however, he accepted the practicality of such a potential change.
Talking about the need for an industrial approach that maintains “minimum reconstitutable capabilities,” Professor Trevor Taylor of the Royal United Services Institute said it was important to design and develop areas of technology that “you can maintain and expand – for instance it may make sense to build at least one carrier to keep the knowledge and abilities that you need should you wish to build more later.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
4 Responses to “Budgetary constraints may force defence spending rethink”
Paul Lettan
If Europe is to have a nuclear deterence, why not Franco-British co-operation for a European funded system? Neutral countries could opt out and put their money into international aid projects?
rwendland
Paul, a problem with close Franco-British co-operation is that our nuclear weapons utilise U.S. technology, as do our nuclear powered subs. The US/UK MDA prevents us disclosing U.S. originated technology to France. So pretty well the only way for us to get into Franco-British technology co-operation is to forget all our designs and technology, and buy into the independent French rechnology. I don’t think out nuclear establishment & lobby would want to do that.
Serious Fraud Office’s BAE investigation sparks concern over future of BAE contracts | Left Foot Forward
[…] payer for further government funding for major defence contracts such as the proposed renewal of Trident, demands for greater transparency and hesitancy over handing over further taxpayer pounds to a […]
Hutton tells Brown: “Don’t scrap Trident” | Left Foot Forward
[…] back. But as Professor Trevor Taylor of the Royal United Services Institute told Left Foot Forward last month, “minimum reconstitutable capabilities” could be maintained through more limited ship […]