National defence in the age of austerity

Abstract

Preparations for the next UK defence review are under way; a struggle is imminent and the lines of battle are being drawn. There is a grave danger that in the new ‘age of austerity’ defence planning—and strategy generally—will be driven by tribal conflicts, either between supporters of one or other of the armed services or between contending viewpoints about the nature of conflict. And there will be others who will argue that the defence review should be driven simply by the need to reduce government expenditure, as quickly as possible. These arguments not only reduce the defence debate to a struggle between various incompatible and uncompromising tribal beliefs—‘war among the fetishes’, perhaps—they also miss the point. This article gauges the extent of the economic challenges which the UK defence establishment will confront over the coming decade. The authors consider how best to approach the problem of undiminished (and even expanding) commitments at a time of decreasing resources. They argue that defence planning should be driven by the notion of value (the ratio of function to cost), which in turn requires both a clear national political vision and a defence establishment which is output‐ rather than input‐oriented. Finally, the authors assert that defence must transform itself to be able to achieve the outputs required in the most efficient and responsive manner.

The Future of Uk Air Power

“…36 This focus chimes well with the 'effects-based approach' which is so prominent in modern doctrine, and it finds plenty of echoes in the official studies already mentioned. However, Cornish and Dorman's advocacy of a strategic and 'value-based' approach to determine which inputs most efficiently deliver particulareffects smacksexplicitly of the rather cocksure systems analysis undertaken by McNamara's'whiz kids' in the Pentagon in the 1960s.…”

UK Security Strategy: Clarity or Compromise?

“…Without these, military manpower cannot in the long run be supported'. 69 Britain is not alone in making the connection between prosperity and security: the US National Security Strategy makes the same point. 70 This does not mean all of the SDSR conclusions should be accepted uncritically; this paper will return to the question of logic and coherence.…”

“…39 The NSC approved the NSS/SDSR 'package' and the fact that it has taken ownership of this suggests it might meet the test set by Paul Cornish and Andrew Dorman before the SDSR that government must 'see itself not just as the manager but as the leader of the national defence effort'. 40 However, while early sounds of activity appear encouraging, some warning signs can be detected. The nonconstitutional nature of the NSC will place a heavy emphasis on the traditional British love of coordination, which, it could be argued, has a tendency to falter under the weight of departmental wrangling and rivalry when relationships become strained.…”

Integration of existing military capability models into the comprehensive capability meta-model

“…The weapons system capability model has also been criticised as a flawed approach to rationalising wider capability issues because it focuses on inputs rather than on outputs or ends, i.e. the effects that the defence policy is trying to create [26]. In the academic literature, the platform-level capability approach is used, for example, to assess military operations [27] or to consider threat evaluation and weapons allocations [28].…”