Should Britain invest in long-range strike aircraft?
Ultimately, the UK requires versatile, flexible and adaptive forces, that provide the broadest range of credible options for responding to a highly dynamic strategic environment and contingencies across the spectrum from sub-threshold, ‘grey zone’ threats through to, in extremis, operations against Russia. Within this, an ability to project credible power to deter and if necessary, defeat even high-end threats is key. The UK depends on the effective operation of the global trading system for its prosperity, as the Covid-19 pandemic has shown, this system is vulnerable to disruption. Although the cost of investment in enhancing defence capabilities may be high, the costs of a failure of deterrence and the outbreak of major conflict in a region of British interest, let alone that of war with Russia, would be exponentially higher. Nor can the UK afford to base its strategic planning assumptions and capability decisions on relying on others, namely the US (a point made by Hugh White with regard to the defence of Australia). The development of a long-range bomber capability would provide the UK with an enhanced means of protecting and projecting its interests in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous strategic environment.
WTF, why not? Britain already gutted their surface fleet to invest in carrier aviation. Keep going until Britain has no army or tactical aircraft, too, eh?
And gutting the British army and air force is the plan:
[Defence Secretary Ben] Wallace, who had earlier criticised Britain’s “sentimental attachment to a static, armoured-centric force structure anchored in Europe”, promised that the future force would be “more forward deployed”, popping up in exercises around the world, and “better equipped for lighter tasks”.
Paying for all this will require cuts. A reduction in tank numbers and warplane orders seems likely. Will Jessett, a former civil servant who led the Ministry of Defence’s work on the last defence review, in 2015, says that earlier reviews were too cautious in getting rid of “sunset” capabilities. Britain should “carve out a niche where we could make a distinctive contribution”. Britain’s Royal Marines, for instance, are developing a “future commando force”, including small units that will be permanently deployed around the world at high readiness.
If the Russians are a threat to Europe--and they are a threat to the smaller NATO countries close to Russian power--tanks and tactical air power are invaluable and not a sentimental attachment.
That said, it would be nice to have a new FB-111-type bomber for medium-range strike that allied air forces could adopt. Long-range missiles on the planes would extend the range even more. Could the F-15EX be stretched to fill such a strike role? Would Britain and Australia be interested in buying such planes?
But hey, Britain will be available for lighter military tasks anywhere on the planet. And Britain has one of the more capable European NATO military forces.
Have a super sparkly day.
UPDATE: This author wants a new B-52 for long-range strike. But it is unlikely that allies would purchase that, too. Is that really better than a new non-stealthy medium-range strike aircraft with stand-off weapons?
