Cost Cutting Brits Have To Borrow US Spy Plane

This is but the latest example from the consequences of years of defense cutting in Great Britain and across Europe as a whole that highlights the dwindling effectiveness of NATO. The respective governments are so consumed with public entitlements on top of massive amounts of public spending in just about every category, that it has left very little means, or regard for that matter, for robust military action. There was the infamous case with Germany just after 9/11 when its government had to borrow US cargo planes to send a small group of German troops to Afghanistan. What’s more, who can forget Germany’s unwillingness and inability to lift a finger in Kosovo?

Top Brass had to ask for help after last year’s controversial decision to axe Nimrods left the UK with NO airborne maritime surveillance capability.

A US Navy P-3 Orion is now keeping watch over HMS Liverpool, mine hunter HMS Brocklesby and nuclear sub HMS Triumph. It has a US crew and is making regular sweeps off Mad Dog Gaddafi’s coast. It will provide information on potential threats to the three vessels.

A source said: “It’s all deeply embarrassing, but we can’t have our guys with no protection so we have to rely on others.”

The new Nimrods were scrapped in the Strategic Defence and Security Review. Ministers claimed the decision would save roughly 2billion but military figures blasted the move.

As for Great Britain, the Island Nation has been America’s most reliable partner in terms of military capability and willingness to employ its forces, but the government announced last year that it intended to cut back on military expenditures. Cutting back, meant, of course, the largest defense cuts since the end of the cold war and the biggest cuts to its special forces (the workhorse for modern militaries ) since the end of WWII. When the news was announced, Nile Gardiner admonished that the defense cuts “will significantly weaken British military power and reduce the long-term ability to fight alongside the US.”

So it should come as no surprise that the British military is no longer seen as a “full-spectrum” force. Consider the fact that Great Britain and France, barely a month into the Libyan campaign, announced NATO was running low on munitions and serviceable aircraft due to the paltry number in action, and it all comes full circle and appears painfully obvious.

Here is a quick assessment from the Heritage Foundation on the negative affects Britain’s Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) has had on its military capabilities.

In 2010, Britain spent approximately 2.7 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. By 2015-2016, as a result of the SDSR, British defense spending will fall to 2 percent of GDP. The army will lose approximately 7,000 soldiers, and 40 percent of its artillery and tanks will be cut. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force will each lose about 5,000 personnel. Britain’s Harrier aircraft have already been mothballed, and its only aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, was decommissioned on March 11. Britain will not have a carrier-borne strike force until 2020.The SDSR poses a series of dangers to the British armed forces, the Anglo-American Special Relationship, and Britain’s leading role in NATO. It increases Britain’s reliance on the United States for transport, logistics, and heavy weapons. By imposing cuts and delays on Britain’s procurement of new carriers, it increases costs and creates a serious capability gap in Britain’s forces. Finally, the SDSR makes it easier for other NATO allies–including the U.S.–to justify cuts as well.