The Institute of Public Policy Research’s (IPPR’s) report calling for a drastic scaling-back in UK defence expenditure raises some awkward questions for the engineering sector. With many of the country’s largest engineering companies involved in the defence sector to a greater or lesser extent, cutbacks in military hardware are going to hit hard.
Defence projects tend to be a relatively easy target for politicians looking for places to cut spending, as they tend to be expensive and associated with a few, very large chunks of kit. It’s now Liberal Democrat policy to cancel the Trident replacement, for example, and the IPPR’s report also recommends this — instead, it says that the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent should be carried by refitted Vanguard-class submarines. It also raises question marks over the two new aircraft carriers currently on the drawing board at BAE Systems and even over the last few attack submarines in the Astute class. All of these were an integral part of the government’s last defence review, which was updated recently with no recommendation for cuts.
But these are tough economic times. The government is now firmly in ‘run-up to election’ mode and the other parties are preparing their manifestos. Everyone knows that cuts are on their way; figures of 10 per cent in all departments have been bandied around.
There are several ways of looking at the IPPR’s recommendations. From a strategic point of view, many in the defence sector would argue that the proposed fleet of seven Astute-class attack subs is the minimum effective force and that the Trident replacement is an essential component to maintaining Britain’s status in the international community. The case for the carriers includes the huge numbers of jobs the project will require, as well as international trade — and R&D — links with US companies who are co-developing the Joint Strike Fighters that will be launched from them.
It might make financial sense to accept a diminished world role and streamline defence spending accordingly, as the IPPR recommends; but whether the government — of whatever political persuasion — is ready to accept that is another matter. But from the technology point of view, there’s another matter. It’s often said — sometimes regretfully — that the defence sector is an engine of innovation. The technologies being developed today are the basis of the money-spinning product lines of the next decade and not just in the defence sector. To take one example, military aerospace technology is a major contribution to Formula 1 and other motorsports, which then itself spins off into the automotive sector.
Cutting back on defence spending is certainly an easy way to shave billions off public finances — the effect down the line is more difficult to quantify. How far did cutbacks in the 1980s damage Britain’s technological standing today? And how much would we lose, two decades into the future, if we cancel those projects now? It would be difficult to come up with figures, as they would be largely speculation and you can’t build policy on speculation. But it’s something all engineers would doubtless urge politicans to consider.
Stuart Nathan, Special Projects Editor
Surely the main reason that the defence sector is such a powerful force in innovation is the huge amounts of money pumped into the industry for research etc.
I personally feel that funding for projects that involve other sectors would be just as well spent in terms of providing both jobs and technological advances.
Anyone agree?
Defence equipment expenditure in the UK is already too low to support current commitments, and has been reported (as with almost every other economic indicator) as being the lowest since 1979, the last time Labour was in power.
The need to slash government spending is not down to defence, it’s down to the tens or hundreds of billions each year that have been spent on millions of additional staff, early retirements and pension guarantees in the public sector, while the public sector has provided us with less and less services year on year. This was no more than trying to buy back the Labour votes that were lost with the reduction in nationalised industries, and hiding the real scale of UK unemployment. The first thing needed is to raise the public sector retirement age to 65, make pensions there based on average salaries and stop early retirements (yes, I have been in the public sector).
Then, we may find that the high-tech, revenue generating jobs in the UK’s only remaining successful manufacturing industry will have a place.
Whatever the case for defence spending, it is vital that that which is expended is directed towards preparation for the next conflict, not the last. With the possible exception of 1939, when the British government appears to have been ready for nothing, it seems that much of all other preparation was ill directed.
A few exceptions do stand out: the Dreadnoughts were brilliant, vital and crucial, even if they weren’t individually as good as the opposing version. But the best part was that the British ones were more numerous and world history is probably as it is because of that.
The point here is that Dreadnoughts were the future, whereas Trident may be more to do with the past. We need tacticians to tell us what’s needed and engineers to advise what’s possible, as well as politicians to tell us what we can afford.
It feels like the same old UK short-termism that has crippled this country. Aircraft carriers may seem expensive and an easy target to save cash, but how many carriers do you get for one Northern Rock bailout? Which has more long-term value to the UK nationally and internationally?
The government is complicit in the high costs for defence equipment; they order and cancel based on the latest political whim and don’t expect costs to rise in line with the uncertainty they perpetuate. Nor do they seem to understand regular work fed to the industry is cheaper than closing factories then restarting them.
It is possible to maintain all our defence capabilities and to drastically reduce costs now. Maintain all the projects but slow up expenditure by extending the time scale of the projects. Carefully extend the life span of selected ships and planes. Reduce numbers of the hideously expensive Euro Fighter. Since this fighter plane is common to many friendly air forces it should be politically possible to borrow planes in an emergency. Future military freight aircraft are obtainable NOW from the US and are well proven so pull out of the pie-in-the-sky expensive EU large military aircraft project. Try and limit future warfare to protecting directly our country and its dependents.
Cutting defence spending means cutting jobs. Britain’s future needs good scientists, experienced engineers and experienced technicians. These are the country’s bread and butter and often the best training comes from the defence industries. We cannot afford to simply be a nation of low paid workers and so-called “financial experts”. We need these people and we need a strong defence industry.