| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Britain | |
| UK no longer produces military rifles | |
| 2009-07-06 | |
| THREE proud centuries of tradition have come to an end with the revelation that Britain is no longer capable of making rifles to arm its own troops. Instead, experts believe, all European armies will one day be using the same type of weapons. The news, branded a national disgrace by one critic, comes after a warning that Britain is in danger of overspending on defence. The nation has been at the forefront of the design and manufacture of small arms from the Brown Bess musket of the 18th century to the Lee Enfield rifle of 1914 and the Vickers machine gun. The last attempt to produce a British rifle was the SA80 but the weapon was widely criticised for its poor quality until its manufacture was taken over by Germany's Heckler and Koch. In its report, the political think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research said: "It is delusional to believe that the UK can go it alone. We need a major increase in European defence and security co-operation to strengthen Nato." Last night Tory MP Patrick Mercer, an Army officer for 25 years, said: "I understand the economic argument but losing the capability to produce our own assault rifle is a national disgrace. Economics are important but so is the capacity to maintain control over strategic defence issues." Some military historians also regretted the loss of tradition. Paul Cornish, curator at the Imperial War Museum, said: "It's extremely sad, since Britain has had a proud tradition of developing and manufacturing small arms. I think the end was pretty much written when the Government privatised the Royal Ordnance factories which, until the Eighties, had been subsidised by the taxpayer. "I suppose that if the SA80 had been more successful, orders would have flooded in from around the world and things might have been different." Historian and author Antony Beevor took a more pragmatic view. "The fact is that there is no room for tradition," he said. "Old local loyalties are gone. The important thing is that we buy the best, not just in terms of arms, but also armour and equipment, and it doesn't matter where it comes from." Last night, the Ministry of Defence said: "We don't make our own assault rifle because there isn't a British company that still manufactures them. In any case, we are happy with what we are using." Last week's report by the Institute for Public Policy Research recommended that the Ministry of Defence should make savings of £24billion from its budget. Among the possible targets for cutbacks is the nuclear submarine fleet. This includes the new class of Astute vessels, seven of which were recently said to be necessary if Britain was to be able to keep up its attack capabilities. Last night experts warned of the dangers of eliminating the new sub marine fleet. Peter Felstead, editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, said: "It's happened with our assault rifles and now there's a risk of it happening with our nuclear submarines. It's one thing to decide to abandon our capabilities to make assault rifles because it's cheaper to buy them off-the-peg elsewhere. It's quite another to do the same thing for our nuclear submarine industry. "The problem is that nuclear submarines are so complex that once we lose that technology, it would be impossible to ever get it back again."
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #6 Suez, indeed, was the graveyard of the empire. U.S. interference led to decades of Arab dictatorships/tyranny/despotism/terrorism. (And the Hungarian freedom fighters were simultaneously given the shaft.) |
| Posted by: borgboy 2009-07-06 20:57 |
| #5 De-industrialization of the West, part 58. BTW, did you know that Columbia produces the Galil under license? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-07-06 18:22 |
| #4 I'll bet Delaware got just as upset when people learned all their weapons were to be made in Pennsylvania. If Europe wants to be one "country" then they need to stop whining over stuff being made in Germany or Belgium or wherever. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-07-06 17:21 |
| #3 Gromky: there are always sticks and stones. Hal: I understand that point and it does seem that some in our country want to tred that same path, with much the same results. But one should not delude himself into thinking that one can be a first class cultural power and a fourth class military power. Life doesn't work that way. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-07-06 15:27 |
| #2 Steve - I'm afraid they already made that decision perhaps as long ago as the 1945 elections, and certainly by the Suez affair. It's more a question of being a second, third or fourth rate power, and even more importantly a first rate cultural power. We share that dilemma with them, and neither of us are doing well lately, but their combined losses in both areas are disheartening. Perhaps King Charles successor (if there is one) can be a cultural and political warrior. |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2009-07-06 14:55 |
| #1 "The problem is that nuclear submarines are so complex that once we lose that technology, it would be impossible to ever get it back again." That's the idea, guys - that's the idea. If we can just make manufacturing weapons impossible, then we can eliminate all wars. It's the same sort of thinking that comes up with ideas like unilateral nuclear disarmament. |
| Posted by: gromky 2009-07-06 14:54 |