Labour Makes Its Move

This isn't going to be a full analysis of today's Labour manifesto, just the bits that interest me most, and whether they tell us anything useful.  Let's start with the most revealing.

Defence

Notwithstanding we can all read between the lines, they've gone for maximum respectability vis-à-vis the casual reader hoping not to find a knock-dead reason for spurning Corbyn.  Support for renewing Trident (sic); 2%-of-GDP minimum expenditure; "The primary duty of government is to guarantee the security of people in the UK"; "We will maintain our commitment to NATO"; "The UK defence industry is world-leading"; etc etc.   

In short: if they've succeeded with their bribes elsewhere in the document, they're hoping this nose-peg job of their own is enough to avoid a million patriotic vetoes in marginal constituencies.

There's also a continuation here of the workerist strand that runs throughout: the defence industry is lauded for providing skilled jobs; to be encouraged as such.  There's many a Tory who'd salute that particular flag. 

You can bet there's an entire closed-session briefing for dyed-in-the-wool Generation-Wuss Trots that starts: "don't worry about the Defence section, it's for older-generation comrades who are suffering from false consciousness; we don't mean a word of it".  So far, so thoroughly, power-seekingly pragmatic.

Energy

If anybody's paying attention, this is a real bugger's muddle.  On the one hand they are hoping to bask in the greenwash they've splattered over everything in sight (though they've realised committing to zero-carbon 2030 is ludicrous, much as that will disappoint some).  Then there's the crazy distraction they propose to bring upon themselves by nationalising not only the wires and pipes (which we've known about for months) but now also the energy supply business, but handing it over to local authorities.  This guarantees (a) a decade in the courts, and (b) power-failures and general chaos.  Or, more likely, (c) a big U-turn in due course.

But overhanging it all is that workerist theme. 

A thriving steel industry will be vital to the Green Industrial Revolution. Labour will support our steel through public procurement, taking action on industrial energy prices, exempting new capital from business rates, investing in R&D, building three new steel recycling plants and upgrading existing production sites. We will ensure that new technologies aren’t just invented here, but are engineered, manufactured and exported from here. We will put British innovation at the heart of our procurement to support local sourcing and reshoring, so that every investment we make strengthens our manufacturing and engineering sectors and supply chains and creates hundreds of thousands of good, unionised jobs here at home. We will use the power of public procurement to strengthen local jobs and supply chains and will require all companies bidding for public contracts to recognise trade unions, pay suppliers on time and demonstrate equalities best practice... we will ensure the UK’s automotive sector isn’t left behind ... by investing in three new gigafactories and four metal reprocessing plants. By supporting UK-made electrical steel we will ensure robust support for an end to end UK supply chain. We’ll also take on the global plastics crisis by investing in a new plastics remanufacturing industry creating thousands of jobs ...

Square that with yer zero-carbon future!  And I think we know which one would get priority, in the party that currently supports a new coal mine in Cumbria.  It has a name, by the way: the "Just Transition".  That'll be used to cover just about anything.

It'd take a bit of squaring with EU rules, as well.  And they wonder whether Corbyn & McDonnell want In or Out!

Overall

Received Wisdom solemnly reminds UK politicians of two sobering manifesto data-points.  First is Labour's very own Longest Suicide-Note in History of 1983; and more recently Mrs May's equally ill-judged 2017 version.  Both suffered from being unable to resist sticking down everything they'd ever dreamed of - and highly counterproductive they were.

Has Labour committed the same mistake again?  The franchise for immigrants and 16-year olds is being smuggled through with all the rest of the bribes, and an adroit Tory counter-campaign should be able to make that alone fatal to Corbyn's cause.  (I did say 'adroit'.)  Is this really the election for a compendium of everything the Left has ever dreamed of?   On the Beeb at 1 o'clock, Norman Smith's only point was, what makes them think this lot can be financed?  Not the reaction they were probably hoping for.

Do they really just want to see it all written down in black and white, so that they can go to their graves saying "if we'd won in 2019, it would have been great"?  And "no-one will ever accuse us of not thinking big: we emptied the tank".

We don't have long to wait.

ND

Super Carriers update.

Super carriers.. Back in July 2008 Capitalists@work foretold....Here

-The carriers will cost 4 billion pounds At least £4 billion as defence procurements have a history of overspend.
The price of the carriers is accepted to have risen to £5.4bn already.

- One report is that the carriers can only use the F-35B Lockheed Martin built in the USA. This is a kind of new generation Harrier part of the joint strike fighter program. But there is a superior F-35C model already under design that won't be able to be used unless modifications to the aircraft carriers are made.
It now appears that one of the carriers will be converted to take catapults enabling them to take the F-35c. Much cheaper and mostly better. {The F-35b is a VTOL design like the Harrier} *Of the 800 supposed orders of F-35 II only 5 have definitely been ordered. 3 by the UK.

And in the many, many comments..Worth reading, as we had little news just the RN's CGI 'artists impression'.
Also to defend the ships the navy has had to order the type-45 destroyer [8, now possibly being reduced to 6] and the astute attack nuclear submarines. Thats an awful lot of shipbuilding. Plus the new, and very late, Nimrod anti-sub plane is needed to defend them too.

- The 6 destroyers and the subs have survived but the Nimrods are cancelled. I don't believe we have any maritime surveillance aircraft at all now.

There is a heavy political lesson for the ConDems here. The coalition is facing the flak for decisions that they had to make, based on the legacy of the previous government.
Very good round up by BBC defence correspondent halfway down the page

There was laughter with Ed Miliband's comment of aircraft carriers without aircraft, which is exactly what HIS OLD Prime Minister ordered, also deliberately signing no-cancellation deals to secure the work for his own voters shipyards. Yet in the media, Cameron's must take the blame.

Welcome to Obama's world Dave.

What the pilots say.

Having spent the weekend with some Army & RAF types I sought out their views on the helicopter arguments. It seems that they are annoyed about the news coverage. They felt it made them sound like whiners. They would have preferred the generals to get the deals done behind closed doors.

When asked if we actually needed more helicopters in Afghanistan the answer was Yes, but not many more. I quoted the numbers of extra troops and extra helicopters and pointed out the disparity. The flyboys replied that they were carrying out twice as many sorties as before. They were using their aircraft and aircrew to greater effect than they had been. But what they actually wanted was spare parts. They said that the spares shortage was critical and led to many out of service helicopters. They couldn't believe that the spares shortage from 2001 was still ongoing. As the men said, this is the easiest and cheapest bit. Far cheaper than new helicopters.

{Not many headlines in spares though. I expect the shortages are to do with Just In Time sourcing and maintenance budgets being kept at peacetime levels but..}

A helicopter that is grounded now is twice as damaging to operations as it is performing twice as many tasks. The helicopter pilots were angry that the spares had not come through and claimed it has been a priority for both army and airforce for years, but has not been given the political priority it warrants. They stated that the 6 Merlins, bought from Denmark in 2007 and still yet to deploy to the theatre, purchased because...well because they were available, were not suitable and not really required. All of the pilots wanted spares, not new machines. Not even Future Lynx, which they do not rate.

Not too surprised there. These were Army and Airforce guys. The Navy want the Future Lynx. Also these pilots currently fly the Lynx, which is a poor performer in Afghanistan. A Westland engineer assured us that the Future Lynx was being fully tested for operations in Afghanistan.

What they all agreed on was that they want is Chinook. These big helicopters can do all the jobs of the smaller ones, can have armour bolted on as needed, can drop into combat three times as many men as a smaller one. The pilots said that the argument that smaller helicopters can land on a smaller landing zone is a bit of a myth because, although they can, the army want the soldiers to land together, not scattered on small LZs. So they often pick a big LZ . The big, twin rotor, Chinooks carry far more cargo than the Lynx. If it loses a wheel it doesn't topple over like a three wheel craft does. {This is quite common apparently.} It has an excellent flight record and the pilots say that what does it matter if you send a big helicopter on a small helicopter job. The Americans do it all the time. {I suspect the answer is cost.}
Update. The Sunday Mirror says Gordon Brown is going to send Chinook helicopters to the region. Hooray!
Only it is going to be one or two new ones. Hmmm. I got the impression these pilots were talking of about thirty Gordon. Still, its a start. {another one}

Helicopters. The oppositions new attack weapons of choice.

"Future Lynx is exactly what the Fleet Air Arm need to replace their old Lynxes. These Lynx aircraft will need replacement in the next six years", so we should be seeing these in about 2008 by that reckoning!"

Speaking in 2002, the defence procurement minister Lord Bach.

The go ahead to begin designing and building the Future Lynx, now designated Wildcat, was not given until December 2008. Up to then there was a real possibility that the entire project could be scrapped. So just the prototype has been built although critical milestones have been met. The military helicopter will not be in service until 2013-2015 at the earliest.

Future Lynx, in typical MOD fashion, will be a multi-role, multi-purpose helicopter for both the army and navy. It will be able to be a transport aircraft for up to 9 infantrymen, a small cargo carrier, an anti submarine platform, a reconnaissance aircraft, Medevac, and an air to surface anti ship platform.
Critics complained at the time of its announcement that the cost of supporting Westland {AgustaWestland, the Anglo-Italian helicopter company owned by Italy's Finmeccanica} would be expensive, around £14 million a piece compared to £4-6 million for an off the shelf alternative.

A good selection of the arguments for and against off the shelf can be found on this forum
Slightly overlooked though is the fact that the MOD are trying to get one helicopter when it should be buying different types. Our multi role efforts usually mean 'adequate at some tasks, indifferent at others.' Wildcat will be no different. The army wanted a light chopper with good anti missile defences for recon and transport and a heavy one for missile, ground support. The navy wanted a fast agile, modern sensors and ASW weapon load craft that could fit on our smallest frigate landing deck.
If WA can get anywhere near the two different aims, while still being able to fly in tropical and arctic climates they will have done very well.

Normally off the shelf look so much better value to us at C@W. Thinkdefence think it would definately have made sense to buy foreign. However helicopters are one of the few bits of military kit that actually have a very useful peacetime role. Our tanks, fighter jets, submarines, and artillery are useless except for war. Helicopters have uses from flood rescue in this country to food drops in Africa to air sea rescue. Developing a capable product would produce valuable exports. The old Lynx was sold to over a dozen nations in its naval or land based role.
The contract is only for 62 anyway. Of those only 34 are for the army.

Bob Ainsworth talked of the £6 billion spending on helicopters "In coming years" which is just the same current spending and Westland money that's already been announced.
Having a new helicopter fleet arrive in 2014 will be of little benefit to the generals and soldiers tomorrow. In the meantime our existing airframes and parts are being worn out and need replacing.

Bob talked of "huge" increases in helicopters in Afghanistan. A smokescreen for there being many more helicopters in theatre that came from Iraq. Sadly for Bob, the troops came with them too, so the ratio didn't improve. Bob Ainsworth again points out the troops have to get out to fight. Heavy armour won't save them.
Of course troops will die. Many more in an offensive. But there is no need for the blokes bringing up the rations to get killed too, if the bully beef could be flown in.

The real problem today is the one that the Lib dems and Tories are accusing the government of. The £1.4 BN cut in helicopter spending in 2004.

At the height of TWO wars, each with terrain that makes airlift essential, the then chancellor, the current PM, decided to cut helicopter spending.

Liam Fox the shadow defence minister said
"Brown was to blame, particularly when it comes to the shortage of helicopters. That was a Treasury decision when Gordon Brown was Chancellor."

It was Gordon's decision back then that gives him his difficulties today.