WI: No 1957 White Paper on Defence

[Wolfpaw]

All on the tin. What if the (in)famous 1957 White Paper on Defence had not been produced? What are some of the ways that this would effect the UK military?

[Simon Darkshade]

You would need to go back and change a whole lot of attitudes and events for that to occur. It wasn't just Sandys and a few cranks advocating the primacy of the missile over manned fighters.

Keeping many of the promising aircraft programmes is appealing, but the decisions made did make sense based on what was known at the time, sadly enough. It was also too late for much of the British aircraft industry, although many didn't see it until too late.

Suez the previous year did show the need for a rethink of what Britain could realistically do in regards to defence. Changing that has a whole lot more butterflies than the equipment and disposition of the forces.

Other than aircraft and missile programmes being cut, the major step was contracting the Army to reflect the end of National Service. Altering that would have a great many interesting butterflies for certain young men of a certain age going into the early 60s.

[The Oncoming Storm]

A big driver behind the Paper was the need to trim the defence budget, that accounted for something like 10% of GDP IIRC. Had Britain's economic performance been stronger in the preferring years then there probably won't be the same pressure to make cuts. There is a cynical view that I've seen on some defence forums that the "No more manned fighters" line was simply an excuse to justify the culling of aircraft projects to save money. Apparently Sandys was repeatedly asked how SAM's would prevent Soviet spy planes flying over British airspace unless Britain was prepared to shoot them down and risk Soviet retaliation, as without interceptors to meet them hundreds of miles away they would have had an unopposed flight, Sandys never answered this question directly and therefore some people believe another agenda was at work.

Had the cuts not been so severe then certainly the Hawker P.1121 gets built and that could have been a big success. Also more advanced versions of the Lightning might have been developed, apparently English Electric had a multi-role swing wing version on the drawing board that addressed many of the plane's shortcomings especially it's short range.

However even if you avoid this episode Britain's underlying lack of economic competitiveness is going to result in future economic crises resulting in defence cuts.

[Wolfpaw]

Hump de Bump!

[Ivir Baggins]

Would the Fairey Delta get built as well?

[Riain]

Without the white paper how do you go about ending conscription?

[Wolfpaw]

Bumping this again.

What are some projects that could see the light of day without a White Paper?

What about Conscription?

[Riain]

The basic issue was the cost of defence with a mass conscripted army being a major cost, in an age where Britain couldn`t use this army to get its own way. The Soviets used their army to take over Hungary with barely an international whimper, but Britain tried to do the same thing and is virtually crippled economically. What`s the point in having a big army and the means to project it onto the beach if when you do so the world reacts in a way which makes the cost far outweigh the benefits.

The 1957 White Paper was the outright statement that Britain was no longer going to attempt to be a world power. It was going to focus its defence spending on the main threat of the Soviet Union, the cheapest way to do that as with the nukes which were now coming online and the best (and cheapest) way to deliver those nukes was via missiles so nothing else is needed.

With a different Suez the 1957 white paper is completely different.

[Wolfpaw]

In that case, let us assume that the Suez Crisis turns out differently.

The Anglo-French are able to sustain the Egyptian campaign long enough to force a palace coup. A pliant government takes over from Nasser and opens negotiations.

The United States supports the Tripartite Powers (in that it does not act against them), something that both Eisenhower and Dulles regretted not doing IOTL.

Israeli troops occupy the Sinai, Anglo-French forces occupy the Canal Zone and await either a UN peacekeeping mandate (unlikely) or the arrival of UN peacekeepers as per OTL (likely). The Israelis are forced to surrender the Sinai (again, per OTL), the Canal Zone is placed under international-peacekeepers with Anglo-French-(nominally) Egyptian contractors overseeing the salvaging/rebuilding of the CZ.

Effects on UK military policy? I expect some grand butterflies.

[Riain]

In that case I think the attitude would be: We`re spending too much on Defence and need to make big cuts, but the armed forces were very handy 6 months ago at opening up the canal again to the great benefit of our economy as well as our diplomatic position in the Mid East so we need certain conventional capabilities.

I think, much like the Falklands, that the decisions made in 1957 would carry for maybe 25 years. I also think that Britain wouldn`t grasp at technical straws like missiles to solve defence problems and would end up walking a better line during this transition.

As for particular aircraft projects, I don`t know. But without the crushing weight of government hatred I think Britain could easily produce an array of combat aircraft in the 60s (when aircraft performance plateaued) that would carry it through into the 80s and even 90s.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Certainly you would have a more confident Britain determined to play a major role in the World. There would continue to be large scale defence expenditure although some of the more extravagant items such as the F.155T (or whatever it was called!) specification for a new super interceptor and the Avro 730 Mach 3 bomber canned for reasons of cost and practicality.

I know everyone focuses on what happened to the RAF in 1957 but the Navy also lost some promising projects such as the new Sea Slug armed air defence cruiser. Certainly given the role carrier aviation and amphibious assault played at Suez you can expect more resources to go into carrier and amphibious ships, CVA-01 or something similar will get built starting from the mid 1960's and perhaps an additional one or two Fearless Class LSD's.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm

Certainly you would have a more confident Britain determined to play a major role in the World. There would continue to be large scale defence expenditure although some of the more extravagant items such as the F.155T (or whatever it was called!) specification for a new super interceptor and the Avro 730 Mach 3 bomber canned for reasons of cost and practicality.

I know everyone focuses on what happened to the RAF in 1957 but the Navy also lost some promising projects such as the new Sea Slug armed air defence cruiser. Certainly given the role carrier aviation and amphibious assault played at Suez you can expect more resources to go into carrier and amphibious ships, CVA-01 or something similar will get built starting from the mid 1960's and perhaps an additional one or two Fearless Class LSD's.

Intresting.

[arrowiv]

As conscription would probably be maintained, that would butterfly the future plans of many a famous British musician of the 60s...

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by arrowiv

As conscription would probably be maintained, that would butterfly the future plans of many a famous British musician of the 60s...

Just what I was thinking

[Peg Leg Pom]

I can't see conscription lasting much longer than otl, economic reality ment that the defense budget would have to be cut at some point even without the Suez debacle. The two easiest cuts to make and so most likely to be made soon are conscription and the mothball fleet. I would imagine that the Royal Auxillary Air Force and Fleet Air Arm Reserve would also be run down. The big question is what happens to the Army? Does the government keep spending a large chunk of the defense budget keeping the bulk of the Army's heavy war fighting capability in Germany acting as targets for Russian Nuclear Weapons, or redirect some of that financial effort towards other forces more likely to survive longer than a day?

[Riain]

During the leadup to Suez the British tested something like 5 nukes. I could see a WP come out ending conscription and emphasising power projection forces since the European front could be held with the 4 Armoured divisions in BAOR the RAFG and the new nuke arsenal.

[Jukra]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

All on the tin. What if the (in)famous 1957 White Paper on Defence had not been produced? What are some of the ways that this would effect the UK military?

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...0review%201957

Here's link to the original paper, btw.

[Jukra]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

All on the tin. What if the (in)famous 1957 White Paper on Defence had not been produced? What are some of the ways that this would effect the UK military?

Reading the original document I think it's mostly a clear headed analysis on the situation, although, using powers of hindsight, the conclusions could be far more radical.

First off, dismantling with manned fighters is certainly reasonable. Their only true tasks were dealing with peacetime intruders and defence of V-force until they could take off. A task limited in time and scope. Conclusion of using mainly SAM's for the role is perfectly understandable and realistic in light of OTL technological development.

Of the few manned fighters which need to be purchased there's no economic reason why should they be of British manufacture while allies have perfectly good designs. (France, US, Sweden) Purchasing small number of domestic porkware has been the tragedy of British defence which continues to day.

Second, maintaining the RN's large ASW force was a remnant of WW II and was largely detrimental to RN's more important task of being able to help power projection to Third World hellholes. Was it Mountbatten who helped to destroy RN in this way? A smaller ASW force focused on escorting carriers and amphibious forces would have been enough for deterrence and for (atomic) third world war.

Third, the White Paper wants to concentrate on strategic air transport. Why not a British CRAF which would enable powerful subsidies to BOAC in order to create a British civilian aircraft industry powerful enough to compete with the French and US counterparts?

[Riain]

I`d hazard a guess that a reason more radical measures weren`t taken is because they were hedging their bets that their conclusions were being drawn from false assumptions, the assumptions being that total nuclear war with the USSR was the only or even main threat.

Perhaps another assumption that could be drawn from the first decade of Cold War is that a level of detterrence can be reached to avert war in Europe but the active theatres are elsehwere. As such Britain needs to maintain a certain credibility in Germany but also to be able to intervene throughout the world to thwart Soviet aims. As such fighters are useful, the US certainly found them useful in Vietnam and other European clients used them heavily in various limited wars.

[Mark-ITSOT]

The big problem is lack of continuity in policy. One government decides that missiles are the thing to have and subsequently throws the UK aerospace and defence industry to the dogs. Then, 13 years later, a different government decides missiles are a BAD idea and throws the UK aerospace and defence industry to the dogs

I mean... Can anyone name a British manufactured medium or long range ground or sea launched missile currently in service?