The Ministry of Defiance | The Wargame Ep 6

Key Concepts

• Peace Dividend: The reduction in defense spending following the end of the Cold War.
• Hollowing Out: The gradual erosion of military capability due to sustained underinvestment and poor procurement.
• Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDR): Periodic government assessments of defense needs and capabilities.
• Defence Procurement: The process of acquiring military equipment and systems.
• Optimism Bias: The tendency to underestimate costs and overestimate benefits in project planning.
• Pain Share/Gain Share Contract: A contract where both the buyer and seller share the risks and rewards of a project.
• Sovereign Capability: The ability of a nation to independently design, develop, and manufacture critical defense equipment.
• Conspiracy of Silence: A situation where governments and opposition parties avoid openly discussing defense cuts to avoid political fallout.

The Ministry of Defiance: A Summary of UK Defence Policy Since the Cold War

This episode of "The War Game" delves into the systemic failures that have left the UK's armed forces vulnerable, drawing on testimony from former Defence Secretaries and military chiefs. The narrative traces a decline in defence capabilities from the post-Cold War era to the present day, highlighting a consistent pattern of underinvestment, flawed procurement, and a lack of transparency with the public.

The Legacy of the Peace Dividend and Shifting Priorities

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the UK, like much of Europe, benefited from a "peace dividend," leading to significant cuts in defence budgets. This period saw a deliberate shift in investment away from "bombs and bullets" towards domestic priorities such as health and welfare. However, the episode argues that the decline is not solely due to reduced investment but also to the inefficient spending of the remaining defence budget.

• Army Size Reduction: The British Army, which was 150,000 strong when some interviewees joined, has shrunk to approximately 72,000-73,000 personnel.
• Perceived Lack of Threat: In the post-Cold War era, the UK's defence policy was shaped by a belief that high-intensity warfare on the home front was no longer a realistic threat. The focus shifted to "power projection" for short-term interventions in conflicts like Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya, for which post-Cold War forces were deemed "ideally suited."

The Impact of 9/11 and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally altered the global security landscape and the focus of military priorities. The UK's involvement in Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq placed immense strain on its armed forces.

• Resource Shortages: British forces in Iraq struggled with a lack of troops and equipment. Soldiers described their vehicles as "mobile coffins" due to inadequate armour against roadside bombs.
• "The Borrowers": British forces were nicknamed "the borrowers" by the Americans due to their constant need to "scrounge" for equipment, which was often old or broken.
• "Running Hot": The strain of deploying on two fronts led the head of the army to publicly warn that the armed forces were "running hot."
• Shift in Warfare: The nature of warfare evolved, with a focus on precision systems and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, rather than massed artillery or air defence systems. This shift meant that the old adage of being able to fight a high-intensity war and therefore handle everything else was no longer true.
• Loss of Resilience: Over 30 years, and particularly in the 15 years following 9/11, the armed forces became highly efficient but significantly less resilient due to an obsession with "just-in-time" supply chains.

The "Black Hole" and Procurement Failures

The period following the global financial crisis of 2008 saw defence budgets facing further pressure, leading to a significant deficit known as the "black hole." This refers to the gap between the cost of desired military capabilities and the allocated budget.

• "Accounting Tricks": The Ministry of Defence (MOD) perfected "accounting tricks" by delaying procurement decisions, which, while balancing books in the short term, ultimately increased total costs and reduced delivery timelines.
• Aircraft Carrier Debacle: The procurement of two 6 billion pound aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, is highlighted as a prime example of poor decision-making and wasteful spending.
  • The initial plan was for 40,000-ton ships, but they ended up being 65,000 tons.
  • A decision to switch from the F-35B variant of the jet to the F-35C variant, which required catapults, led to a projected cost of £750 million to £1 billion for adaptation, later revised to £1.75 billion. This would have resulted in spending £8 billion for one operational ship.
  • The decision was eventually reversed, leading to the UK having ships armed with F-35B jets that have a shorter range and carry fewer weapons, but at least the program did not further hollow out defence.
• Ajax Armoured Fighting Vehicle: This 5.5 billion pound program is years late and has faced issues with excessive noise and vibrations, temporarily halting its use by soldiers. It is also significantly over budget.
• Contractor Influence: Defence contractors are skilled at negotiating contracts that benefit them, often with clauses that limit their liability for cost overruns. The Aircraft Carrier Alliance contract, for example, meant contractors would only lose 10% of their profit per pound of cost overrun.
• Requirements Managers: A lack of continuity in "requirements managers," who rotate jobs every two years, leads to constant changes in equipment specifications, driving up costs.
• Optimism Bias: The MOD has a history of presenting "wildly optimistic assumptions" about the price tag of equipment to ensure program approval, with the true cost inevitably being much higher.

The Conspiracy of Silence and Lack of Honesty

A recurring theme is the failure of successive governments to be honest with the public about the impact of defence spending choices.

• "Conspiracy of Convenience": Grant Shapps describes a "conspiracy of silence" where governments and opposition parties avoid making defence a prominent issue, knowing that if in power, they would also face difficult choices about resource allocation.
• Public Perception: The deep unpopularity of the Iraq War, in particular, impacted public opinion, making it harder for the MOD to compete for funds. The public no longer felt under direct threat on the home front.
• "Bluffing": There is a perception that the UK has been "bluffing" about its defence capabilities, with enemies aware of the hollowed-out state of the armed forces while the public remains largely unaware.

Key Arguments and Perspectives

• Malcolm Rifkind: Argues that Margaret Thatcher's ability to build trust with Mikhail Gorbachev was crucial in ending the Cold War peacefully. He also highlights the difficulty of defending defence budgets against other cabinet ministers who prioritize health, education, and housing.
• George Robertson: Emphasizes the constant fight to maintain military capability despite funding shortages and the need to balance foreign policy objectives with Treasury demands.
• Jeff Hoon: Reflects on the challenges of leading the UK's response to 9/11 and the subsequent wars, acknowledging the lack of preparedness for such an event and the struggles faced by British forces in Iraq.
• General Sir Nick Carter: Expresses concern about the evolution of warfare and the UK's reduced capacity to fight high-intensity conventional wars, while also acknowledging the challenges of modern procurement and the loss of manufacturing base.
• John Hutton: Describes the "black hole" in defence finances and the pressure to make savings, highlighting the accounting tricks used to balance budgets.
• Liam Fox: Warned of dire consequences to national security due to planned defence cuts, but ultimately accepted significant reductions.
• Field Marshal Lord David Richards: Fought against the Strategic Defence Review but ultimately accepted it, relying on assurances that cuts would be reversed. He also expresses regret over the aircraft carrier decision.
• Sir Bernard Gray: Identifies systemic biases in defence procurement, including military chiefs ordering more than they can afford and making frequent changes to specifications. He also points to the favourable terms for defence contractors.
• Philip Hammond: Describes his hands-on approach to negotiating the aircraft carrier contract, emphasizing the need for a fairer share of risk between the MOD and contractors.

Conclusion

The episode concludes that successive governments have failed to be honest with the public about the consequences of defence spending choices. This has led to a gradual erosion of the UK's military capabilities, leaving it vulnerable to emerging threats. The narrative underscores a persistent cycle of underinvestment, inefficient spending, and flawed procurement, all masked by a "conspiracy of silence" that prevents a frank national discussion about defence. The re-emergence of threats, particularly from Russia, has exposed the fragility of the UK's current defence posture.