Letter: Cuts to defence just don't go far enough

Hopefully they can be combined as a single base, the best outcome of a situation that should never have arisen in the first place.

But as for savings on our armed forces, I am surprised by the absence of comment on our expensive commitments in Germany. Why do we still have army bases there?

Our German EU partners are not a threat to us, and over the past 65 years, while Britain has been picking fights with other countries all over the world, the most aggressive action of Germany has been supporting Nato in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

Perhaps Germany should have been keeping us under control, rather than the other way round.

Nor is it necessary to maintain bases in Germany to protect Britain from Soviet attack as the Soviet Union no longer exists and its successor, the Russian Federation, which depends on British and various other western influences for its continued prosperity, will not give us any trouble.

So bring back all the British forces from Germany immediately and save millions of pounds from the defence budget.

IAIN CAMPBELL

Pentland Terrace

Edinburgh

That the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is looking at operating conventional aircraft from the new aircraft carriers, as a lower cost (and more capable) alternative to the Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (Stovl) variant of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter is to be welcomed.

However, the government seems to be grossly underestimating the cost and complexity of shoe-horning aircraft launch catapults into what are already costly, cramped and manpower/system-intensive ships.

It is fair to say that such a move is a recipe for calamitous cost and timescale overruns of the type for which the MoD has become notorious in recent years.

Through-life maintenance and proofing of the launch catapults would also be a major headache that would seriously limit the operational availability of the ships.

It doesn't matter whether the catapults are old-fashioned steam catapults or state-of-the-art (technologically immature) electromagnetic launch catapults - both are bespoke and complex systems, and the implications are the same.

The MoD should be looking at the less ambitious option of operating whatever conventional aircraft it chooses from the carriers' decks on a Short Take-Off/Arrested Recovery (Stobar) basis - with a conventional tail hook recovery, but with a "ski jump" ramp instead of catapults.

Yes, this will limit aircraft weapons' payload to more modest levels, but in return the MoD will stand more of a chance of bringing the carriers online as a fully operational system, on cost and on budget.And the ability to "cross-deck" with our allies would be maintained.

Both France and the US have large aircraft carriers whose decks could be used to trial and prove our concept of Stobar operations.

I feel duty bound to say that the government's imminent decision to phase out the entire Harrier force, and the resulting ten-year gap it will leave in our power projection capability, is a misjudgment of monumental proportions, which it will soon come to regret.

Surely David Cameron can see sense and keep just two squadrons of Harriers in commission (16 or so aircraft ) just to maintain a basic capability in this area and to ensure that the Navy's fixed wing skill-set is not totally lost in the intervening years?

(Dr) MARK CAMPBELL-RODDIS

Pont Crescent

Dunblane, Perthshire

The strategic defence review has been reduced to farce by the decision on aircraft carriers. We are to have none for six years, one without aircraft for three years (it will then be scrapped) and a new one thereafter.

This is not even pork-barrel politics as Clydeside does nothing for the Conservatives.

In this age of missiles, what is the role of these ships? Remember the Prince of Wales and Repulse in the Pacific war.

Robert McLean

Strachan Road

Edinburgh