“If you want to know the future, look at the past” – Albert Einstein
(Introducing our "Manifesto for Defence")
Those who ignore the lessons of history are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past. So said the Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana (1863- 1952). Events are now aligning to replicate the situation that led to the Second World War, and it is apparent that the United Kingdom and the other Western democracies are sleepwalking towards catastrophe. The aggressive Axis of Germany, Italy and Japan, which was eventually defeated at massive cost in both blood and treasure, is being replaced in this instance by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. A combination that includes three nuclear powers, and which is massively more capable than the one that went before, both in military might and industrial strength. This new Axis is challenging the International Rules-Based Order on which our security and welfare depend. The new Axis powers are not afraid to use intimidation and violence to get their way. Both historically and in the present situation, appeasement has been shown to be ineffective. Overt and active deterrence in the form of a strong military and the will to use it is the only safeguard we now have against the very real chance of a major war.
With a General Election announced for 4th July, Pro Patria No.6, our ‘Manifesto for Defence’, is aimed at politicians and policy-makers (of all parties) and at civil servants and military chiefs who know the truth but by dint of their positions must, at least in public, follow a pre-determined political line. It is they who will decide how the UK will manage the developing threats, and so we ask that they read PP6 and act upon its advice. There will be some who will allow this journal to gather dust on a shelf, but to them we urge that they should at least read the introduction (with its poignant quotation from Lord Alanbrooke), the ‘Target List’ and the final chapter. Having read those three sections they may find themselves being drawn further into this publication as they realise that the fate of this Nation depends upon their decisions in the months ahead, and they need to know what it is they should do and why.
Fred Dupuy
Chairman of Defence UK
2024 budget
We are shocked and disappointed by the continued failure of the Government to allocate greater resources to the Armed Forces in the 2024 Budget. At this time of increasingly serious threats to UK and international security, with our Forces underfunded and undermanned, leaving Britain extremely vulnerable to aggression by rogue states such as Russia, China and Iran, the case for the UK Government to commit to a substantial increase in defence funding is overwhelming. We therefore endorse the calls this weekend by several former Defence Secretaries to raise UK spending on our Forces to at least 2.5% of GDP.
Defence UK has long argued that the target should be 3%.
Andrew Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Defence UK Ltd,
09/03/2024
Defence UK has long argued that the target should be 3%.
Andrew Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Defence UK Ltd,
09/03/2024
ready for war?
Defence is now back at the top of the media and political agenda. 'Ready for war?', the latest report by the House of Commons Defence Committee, lays bare the consequences of decades of defence cuts, which have left our Armed Forces over-stretched and under-resourced, with severely reduced capabilities. At the same time, the situation in the Red Sea, and the proxy wars being waged on behalf of Iran by terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, Hezbollah and others, together with continued Russian aggression towards Europe, and increasing threats in the Far East from Communist China and North Korea, mean that the world is a more dangerous place than it has been for many years. The time has come for British politicians of all parties to accept that we need to invest properly in rebuilding Britain's military capabilities - and that means spending at least 3 per cent of GDP on national defence and security.
Andrew Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Defence UK Ltd
5th February 2024
Andrew Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Defence UK Ltd
5th February 2024
Why are our defence forces no longer fit for purpose?
Whose fault is it that our defence forces have been steadily in decline for at least the last 30 years with the ‘Peace Dividend’, at the end of the Cold War, having been "maxed out"?
The cut backs have been so severe we can now barely deploy a brigade, and sustain it in the field, without the assistance and logistical support of our allies and the Navy doesn’t now have enough sailors to man all its ships along with recent talk as to whether even the elite Royal Marines have a future.
The simple answer is that any organisation in decline has to look to its leadership which must bear a large part of the blame. The trouble for our forces is that they are subject to two masters – their own Top Brass and the government of the day along with the bloated MOD.
It is surely indicative that all is not well when while the three services are to be cut by circa 18% by 2025, the Top Brass, from all three services, has thus far had a net increase of two. This situation is typified by the current statistic that the Navy has more Admirals than ships!
Having spent 25 years in uniform, with a military career which included 10 years regular service with The Royal Green Jackets from 70-80, 12 years Territorial service 82-94 and finally three years FTRS from 01-03, all thankfully outside the politics of high command, which helped to give me the perspective of the small boy in the fable of the King’s new clothes!
Over the years nothing seems to have stopped governments cutting our forces, with the army now the lowest since the end of the Napoleonic wars, and the three areas I cover in this article are all largely in the domain of our Service Chiefs to resolve. They however now have the in-built problem that would require proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas!
I have intentionally not expanded each of these three areas believing in the old service adage of KISS or ‘Keep it Simple Stupid’!
1. - Defence Reviews(DRs) – are the fundamental bases on which to plan our defence requirements and frankly we are suffering from a huge mismatch between our total forces and their expected commitments.
The trouble is DRs are headed up by ignorant and transient politicians and a cumbersome bloated MOD, now larger than the Army, and service chiefs fighting their own corners. One shouldn’t underestimate the damage interservice rivalry plays in our defence outcomes.
The key trouble then develops with the lack of vigour and in-depth knowledgeable questioning at the Defence Committee stage, currently it is quite simply the blind leading the blind. What is require is well briefed and experienced barristers employed to ask the right questions and give the Defence Review the third degree!
Our current decline stems from a warmongering PM in Tony Blair ready to commit forces not adequately equipped, along with Top Brass too willing to accept deployment on the basis of ‘if we aren’t used, we will lose it’ and in my opinion the very misguided fixation with pooling our resources into the EU army project, again fully supported by Tony Blair, which has directly led to a reduction in our own independent capability.
Finally, in any review a far greater consideration should be given to expanding our Reserve Forces, with any necessary supporting Reserve Forces Act, which are cheaper to run than the regular forces by a ration of 8:1 and have the added benefit to our nation of providing a military structure to the youth of today throughout the country.
2. Procurement - After deciding what forces we need, matched to realistic commitments, the next essential is to provide them with the correct kit, equipment and transport.
Funnily enough the problem doesn’t lie with the actual process as to the trio of ills of poor requirement analysis, specification expansion often caused by fighting the last war and a disregard for the important consideration of quantity over quality as Service Chiefs so often go for ‘big boy’s toys’!
Falling into that category are the Navy’s two aircraft carriers at £8 billion, which in any event if needed should have catapults and be nuclear powered, and are currently at anchor in Portsmouth as they are apparently not battle ready to be deployed to the Red Sea.
The RAF’s problematic Typhoon, a joint endeavour with the EU, costing £124 million each compared to the reliable F16’s at half the price.
Lastly the army’s Ajax, which is still not in service, has had its weight doubled since conception from 20 to 40 tons so is no longer air-portable and vibrates which gives the troops inside headaches.
Lastly, given our near total destruction of our money-making defence industry, we need to consider buying off-the-shelf rather than trying to reinvent the wheel which applies to everything from aircraft right down to the humble army boot, while also considering the military advantages of quantity versus over-complicated quality.
3. Back to basics – While it essential we keep up with the latest technology we should not lose sight of the need to keep as many things as simple as possible.
Reports and returns should return to the principles of ‘When, where, what,’ based on what a commander can realistically handle in the field.
However sophisticated a vehicle, jet or ship one well aimed missile can still destroy it.
Recruitment needs to be centred on ‘alpha’ males and not the recent absurdity of diversity quotas regrettably endorsed by our Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals. Going woke won’t produce warriors!
Another telling statistic, proving the army cannot get the basics right, is that they have recently paid out £160million to troops for cold feet injuries.
Lastly, while traditions and history in all services are important, they should never stand in the way of streamlining structures and orders of battle (orbats) as typified by my own regiment’s amalgamation into the Rifles.
In conclusion that something is radically wrong is epitomised by our inability to independently field and sustain a brigade let alone a division in the field brought about by years of inadequate Defence Reviews, procurement failures and by overcomplicating some of the very basics.
Remembering that national defence should be any government’s top priority it is staggering that we don’t have well equipped regular forces backed up by an enhanced reserve, equipped with reliable good kit available in quantity.
Those responsible should hang their heads in shame.
Niall Warry
(February 2024)
the parlous state of our armed forces
The growing threats to our maritime security - especially the dangers to UK and international shipping from Iranian-backed Houti rebels - coupled with alarming media reports and speculation about the current weakened state of the Royal Navy and chronic shortage of RN personnel, lead to the inescapable conclusion that the British Government is neglecting its duty to ensure effective defence of Britain and our worldwide strategic and economic interests. It is high time the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised that the international situation is deteriorating faster than the UK can repair its depleted Armed Forces and weakened military capabilities after years of Defence cuts. Britain's economic recovery and future prosperity are directly linked to our ability to deter and withstand threats to our security. Whatever its other priorities, there is an urgent need for the Government to start ramping up Defence funding, with the clear goal of committing at least 3 per cent of UK GDP to national defence and security. And the absolute priority for an island nation like Britain - a global trading nation - must be to rebuild our Navy.
Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK Ltd.
6th January 2024
Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK Ltd.
6th January 2024
GAZA
It would be interesting to know how many level-headed people in Gaza, watched a Hamas symbol of victory, the naked body of a German Jewish girl being dragged through the streets of their town, and thought ‘no good will come of this.’ Also, what Gazan mothers are saying to the sons that took part in, or supported, the recent Hamas raid into Israel, now that it has brought Armageddon down upon them?
Despite their muted criticism of the recent Israeli action in Gaza, both Jordan and Egypt, no friends of the Palestinians, will be hoping that Hamas is crushed. In 1970, at the cost of 15,000 dead, the Jordanian army evicted the Palestinian Fayadeen who had been attempting to dominate the country and use it as a base for attacking Israel. Those Palestinian fighters decamped to Lebanon, where they destabilised that country and caused an extremely destructive, and bloody, civil war. After the Egyptian section of the Muslim Brotherhood had been voted into power, the population of that country belatedly realised what they had done and subsequently welcomed the military coup, which replaced what had all the signs of becoming an extreme fundamentalist government. Hamas is an associate of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt wants no part of them. Jordan and Egypt, together with Saudi Arabia and some Gulf states, know that if Israel is defeated and finally destroyed, Iran’s destabilising actions will then be turned upon them. For their part, Iran, Hamas’s backers, will be hoping for the maximum number of Palestinian casualties to fuel the propaganda war they are pursuing. The tunnels and underground headquarters of the Hamas terror organisation have of course been deliberately built under hospitals, schools and other public buildings to maximise civilian casualties should the Israelis try to engage their attackers. Hiding behind a shield of non-combatants is one of the oldest tactics in the book, but shying away from a conflict in such circumstances, because of the harm you may cause to innocent civilians, is the road to defeat. So, despite the hurricane of apparent adverse public opinion from around the world, which will pass, the worst thing that Israel can do now is stop their assault and let Hamas survive to fight another day.
The leading politicians of the Western World, Israel’s backers, need to take note of the silent majorities within their countries, and stand firm against the noisy crowds that have been whipped up by embedded Iranian cells and Islamic organisations. In the UK, the public should be reminded that the first London demonstration in support of the Palestinian and Hamas attack, took place before Israel struck at Gaza, and in effect supported and championed the barbaric act of terrorism that had taken place. The abandonment of Israel, or the forcing of her to accept a cease fire, will give victory to Iran and Hamas, leading to ever more, long term, disruption in the Middle East, and the loss of far more lives than are presently at risk. The populations and local governments that host, shelter and support Iranian backed terror organisations need to learn that, when the aggrieved victim knocks that shelter down, they will be under the rubble along with their guests.
Disrupting the accord that Israel was building with Saudi Arabia and other moderate Gulf states was of course the aim of Iran and her surrogate, Hamas. That meeting of minds has now taken a step backwards, but if the desire to accept each other’s being was there before this conflict, it will return after the present fighting has subsided. On the West Bank, the Palestinian Fatah organisation, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, has come to terms with the Israelis and has recognised the State of Israel. Fatah, under the protection of the Israeli Government, controls about 60% of the West Bank and the United Nations has recognised that area as the de-facto State of Palestine. In Gaza the moderate Fatah officials were systematically assassinated by Hamas. Thus no meeting of minds is possible there until Hamas is removed and the way is open for reason to prevail.
When David Ben-Gurion announced the formation of Israel in 1948, he declared it as a state for both Jew and Moslem alike. That original intent, while still there, has been sidelined by the constant attacks intended to drive the Jewish people into the sea. The recent Hamas attack, and its response, is just one act in a 75-year fight for Israel’s survival, where politics and politicians have largely failed. Unfortunately, while longing to live peacefully alongside her neighbours, that peace is not within the Israeli gift; it resides with radical Palestinians and Iran, who want nothing short of Israeli defeat and her total destruction. There is absolutely no point in trying to follow a path of reason with people who will not be reasonable. The present situation is one for fighting not talking, and Israel has no choice but to strike back every time she is attacked.
Fred Dupuy
18th November 2023
Despite their muted criticism of the recent Israeli action in Gaza, both Jordan and Egypt, no friends of the Palestinians, will be hoping that Hamas is crushed. In 1970, at the cost of 15,000 dead, the Jordanian army evicted the Palestinian Fayadeen who had been attempting to dominate the country and use it as a base for attacking Israel. Those Palestinian fighters decamped to Lebanon, where they destabilised that country and caused an extremely destructive, and bloody, civil war. After the Egyptian section of the Muslim Brotherhood had been voted into power, the population of that country belatedly realised what they had done and subsequently welcomed the military coup, which replaced what had all the signs of becoming an extreme fundamentalist government. Hamas is an associate of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt wants no part of them. Jordan and Egypt, together with Saudi Arabia and some Gulf states, know that if Israel is defeated and finally destroyed, Iran’s destabilising actions will then be turned upon them. For their part, Iran, Hamas’s backers, will be hoping for the maximum number of Palestinian casualties to fuel the propaganda war they are pursuing. The tunnels and underground headquarters of the Hamas terror organisation have of course been deliberately built under hospitals, schools and other public buildings to maximise civilian casualties should the Israelis try to engage their attackers. Hiding behind a shield of non-combatants is one of the oldest tactics in the book, but shying away from a conflict in such circumstances, because of the harm you may cause to innocent civilians, is the road to defeat. So, despite the hurricane of apparent adverse public opinion from around the world, which will pass, the worst thing that Israel can do now is stop their assault and let Hamas survive to fight another day.
The leading politicians of the Western World, Israel’s backers, need to take note of the silent majorities within their countries, and stand firm against the noisy crowds that have been whipped up by embedded Iranian cells and Islamic organisations. In the UK, the public should be reminded that the first London demonstration in support of the Palestinian and Hamas attack, took place before Israel struck at Gaza, and in effect supported and championed the barbaric act of terrorism that had taken place. The abandonment of Israel, or the forcing of her to accept a cease fire, will give victory to Iran and Hamas, leading to ever more, long term, disruption in the Middle East, and the loss of far more lives than are presently at risk. The populations and local governments that host, shelter and support Iranian backed terror organisations need to learn that, when the aggrieved victim knocks that shelter down, they will be under the rubble along with their guests.
Disrupting the accord that Israel was building with Saudi Arabia and other moderate Gulf states was of course the aim of Iran and her surrogate, Hamas. That meeting of minds has now taken a step backwards, but if the desire to accept each other’s being was there before this conflict, it will return after the present fighting has subsided. On the West Bank, the Palestinian Fatah organisation, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, has come to terms with the Israelis and has recognised the State of Israel. Fatah, under the protection of the Israeli Government, controls about 60% of the West Bank and the United Nations has recognised that area as the de-facto State of Palestine. In Gaza the moderate Fatah officials were systematically assassinated by Hamas. Thus no meeting of minds is possible there until Hamas is removed and the way is open for reason to prevail.
When David Ben-Gurion announced the formation of Israel in 1948, he declared it as a state for both Jew and Moslem alike. That original intent, while still there, has been sidelined by the constant attacks intended to drive the Jewish people into the sea. The recent Hamas attack, and its response, is just one act in a 75-year fight for Israel’s survival, where politics and politicians have largely failed. Unfortunately, while longing to live peacefully alongside her neighbours, that peace is not within the Israeli gift; it resides with radical Palestinians and Iran, who want nothing short of Israeli defeat and her total destruction. There is absolutely no point in trying to follow a path of reason with people who will not be reasonable. The present situation is one for fighting not talking, and Israel has no choice but to strike back every time she is attacked.
Fred Dupuy
18th November 2023
Statement on the Resignation of Ben Wallace as Defence Secretary
Defence UK Ltd is sorry to see Ben Wallace leaving the Ministry of Defence after four years as Secretary of State but we congratulate Grant Shapps on his appointment as the new Defence Secretary. As Ben Wallace says in his resignation letter, this is a challenging time for our Armed Forces. The world situation is getting more dangerous all the time and the new Defence Secretary and his ministerial colleagues must aim to secure increased funding from HM Treasury to help rebuild the UK's currently depleted military resources and capabilities, and to make national security the Government's number one political priority.
Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK Ltd
31st August 2023
Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK Ltd
31st August 2023
The Pragmatism of Survival
With the decision of the United States to supply Ukraine with cluster munitions, several media outlets in this country were very quick to point out the difference in the ethical stance the UK, and many of her NATO allies, have taken on the subject, verses that of the Americans. Some even suggested that the move was causing a rift between ourselves and the United States. While pointing out that legally the UK was not allowed to manufacture, hold, or use cluster munitions, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, was quick to close down any suggestion that a rift existed between the UK and the US. The difference does however raise the question of why the UK has abdicated from the ability to use such weapons and if she is suffering from Benign Naivety in doing so?
The American journalist and peace activist, Colman McCarthy, once wrote, ‘Everyone is a pacifist between wars. It’s like being a vegetarian between meals’. The Cluster Munitions Prohibition Bill started in the House of Lords in 2006 as a Private Members Bill. It was then passed to the Commons and the UK government signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 3rd December 2008, with the bill finally coming into force, in the UK, on 1st December 2010. The period covered during the passage of this bill was one where this country was, for the most part, enjoying the fruits of a peace dividend following the termination of the Cold War. The two Gulf Wars were in the past and our armed forces were engaged largely in constabulary roles around the world. The EU and NATO had pushed their borders further to the East, Russia was opening to western investment, China was becoming the workshop of the world and the Golden Age of Sino-UK relations was just around the corner. Apart from a few international terrorists, nobody was threatening the UK and the environment was perfect for pacifism and the ethical warriors to hold sway in the debating chambers of government.
In recent years however an awareness has developed that the international situation affecting the UK may not be quite as benign as had been thought. The attack in the UK with a Russian nuclear weapon, Polonium-210, that killed Alexander Litvinenko on 23rd November 2006, and which then left a trail of contamination behind it, might have acted as a wake up call beyond the direct security services, but by that time the Cluster Munitions Prohibition wheel had already started to turn. Another wake up call came on the 4th March 2018 when the UK sustained an attack with the Russian nerve agent Novichok, which apparently had been developed to circumvent the requirements of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), to which both Russia and the UK are signatories. This attack was aimed at Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, but it left a trail of contamination and eventually killed an innocent civilian. It is believed that Russian forces delivered both the Litvinenko and Skripal attacks and there is also a belief that they have been involved in several, possibly in many, of the unexplained deaths in this country of Russian dissidents to whom the UK had given sanctuary and to the deaths of others who have been critical of the Government in Moscow. If any doubt lingered on the inadvisability of turning a blind eye to Russia’s increasingly aggressive actions, they should have been well and truly scotched by her invasion of Ukraine on 20th February 2014 and the subsequent annexation of Crimea. She was one of the signatories to the December 1994 Budapest Agreement on Security Assurances, where, in exchange for Ukraine surrendering her nuclear weapons and becoming a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Russia, the United States and the UK had signed to confirm that they would respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. Thus, Russia’s invasion of Crimea was a clear repudiation of the Budapest Agreement and an overt demonstration of her expansionist intent, which resulted in little reaction from the West in general and the United States and Britain in particular. One wonders if, at the time of considering the conditions of the Budapest Agreement, the Ukrainian’s had possessed a crystal ball that could have looked 20 years into the future, how willing they would have been to surrender those nuclear weapons and their means of delivery?
The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy (IR), published on 16th March 2021, finally came out and identified Russia as a Direct and Acute threat, with China as a Systemic Competitor (but more of her later). As Russia’s further invasion into Ukraine on 24th February 2023 was to prove, that assessment was right on the button, but even then, some voices, particularly from several NATO allies, were still inclined towards appeasement. In fact, if it had been up to Presidents Macron of France and Scholtz of Germany, they would have handed Ukraine over to the Russians with hardly a murmur. With their backs against the wall however, and fighting for their very survival, the Ukrainians were about to show the world what true grit could achieve, when facing what appeared to be an overpowering aggression and the military experts had already written them off as a lost cause.
With the help of Western nations, primarily the UK and USA, Ukraine spent the eight years of her stand-off with Russia, the period between the 2014 invasion of Crimea, the incursions into the Donbas region, and the 2022 extension of that invasion, re-training and re-organising her armed forces in order hold back her much larger and aggressive neighbour. Then with the eleventh-hour delivery of some hi-tech weapons to bolster their indigenous products, they were able to halt that later assault and partially throw it back. Now the Ukrainians are attempting to reclaim large tracts of their country that are still occupied by Russian forces. There has been a steady increase in the weaponry supplied to Ukraine from the West, primarily but not exclusively from NATO, but it has taken time, during which the Russians have built defences in depth, while deluging the Ukrainian civilian and military population with showers of explosive ordnance, including cluster munitions. Now the Ukrainian’s are losing thousands of their soldiers, killed or wounded, as they try to push through those defences; defences that include huge areas of dense minefields, another weapon that the UK has abdicated from the possible use of! After becoming a signatory of the 1997 Ottawa Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, the 1998 Land Mines act made it illegal for the UK to use such weapons. That treaty included in the definition of anti-personnel mines, any such weapon that could be detonated by a passing vehicle, thus by default including the anti-tank mines which are now hampering the use of the excellent western tanks and infantry fighting vehicles that have been supplied to Ukraine. The Russian anti-tank defences, therefore, of which the mine is a major component, have turned the ground conflict into an infantry and artillery war; not unlike the 1914-18 war which swallowed men in their millions.
Despite being extremely effective weapons on the battlefield, the major concern with cluster munitions and mines is their legacy effect. Unexploded cluster bomblets and uncleared mines have in the past caused numerous injuries and deaths to unsuspecting civilians long after a conflict has ceased. Unexploded ordnance is not however isolated to cluster munitions. We in the UK are still occasionally digging up unexploded bombs that were dropped eighty years ago. However, for the Ukrainians, they now have to judge how many of their soldiers they are prepared to see killed or maimed, against the number of civilians that might later be affected after the war is over, and this at a time when the eastern part of their country is already covered with huge Russian minefields and has already had a liberal sprinkling of cluster munitions! My grandmother used to say, ‘love goes out of the window when destitution comes in the door,’ and likewise moral values take a back seat when annihilation looks you in the face. Pragmatism will then rule the day and you will do what is necessary to survive. The concussion effect of cluster munitions on the ground can help to blast a path through mine fields and against infantry in open country, leafy glades, and uncovered trenches they will be devastating. Thus, the Ukrainians have been calling for them for some time.
Two of our most dangerous potential foes, Russia and China, have not signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions nor the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, but thankfully for the West, neither has the United States. Ukraine has signed the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty but not the Convention on Cluster Munitions; an omission that I am sure they now feel thankful for. The Ukraine war has shown that the mine and the cluster munition still have a place on the battlefield and used in an appropriate and responsible way, an effective one. With the use of modern handheld devices, the soldier laying mines can now fix and record the exact position of every mine laid, so that the area can be effectively cleared after a conflict is over. Likewise the laying of ordnance by artillery, missile or aircraft, can also largely be recorded for post conflict clearance operations.
What of our other potential foe though, or as the IR prefers to call her a ‘Systemic Competitor’? Systemic - the whole - Cultural, Technical, Commercial, Diplomatic, Geo-Political and Military. In the 2020 Defence UK Journal, Pro Patria 2, the article ‘The Tiger is Out of the Cage’ warned of the growing Chinese threat and that appeasement would not restrain her. Like Russia, China is an authoritarian state that, as we have seen with Hong Kong, does not believe that treaties need to be honoured. Unlike Russia however, which is a declining power, she is on the rise and is doing so in leaps and bounds. With her occupation of reefs and islands in the Exclusive Economic Zones of other countries, and her dis-regard for the Rules Based Order, she has become quite open about her expansionist intentions. On the Military side she is building a blue water navy that can challenge the west and, to support it, is seeking bases around the world, including in our back yard. She supports Argentina’s claim on the Falkland Islands and has offered equipment to improve that countries military capabilities. It is within the realms of possibility, that in say ten or twenty years time, UK forces could be facing off against a Chinese aircraft carrier and amphibious task force, deployed in support of that territorial claim. China is about to increase the size of her Marine Force to 40,000 strong, half the size of the entire British Army and the Royal Marines combined, and she is building the assault ships to carry and support that force around the globe. Like the Ukrainian David facing off against the Russian Goliath, UK forces might, one day, find themselves massively outnumbered by a Chinese opponent. If that were to happen, would we wish we had the ability to mine the possible landing places and deluge, with cluster munitions, any Chinese Marines that were attempting to establish a bridge head, and who had not themselves foregone the use of such weapons?
Is it time the UK re-visited her decisions to ban the use of cluster munitions, land mines and possibly even chemical weapons? By the end of World War 2, Germany had amassed a 12,000-tonne stockpile of the nerve agent Sarin, but apparently had not used it because Hitler feared that the Allies would, in retaliation, bomb German cities with mustard gas; both weapons now legally unavailable to the signatories of the CWC. However, as the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, Syria, and the Salisbury Novichok attack has shown, it is impossible to ban by legislation, everybody from using weapon systems once they have been discovered and developed. That being the case it is imbecilic to ban yourself from using any system when a potential adversary retains the ability to use it on you. The Syracusan General Hermocrates (fifth century BC) claimed that ‘where there is mutual fear, men think twice before they make aggression upon one another.’ Thus, the whole essence of deterrence is to be able to show that you can do unto others as they might do unto you, and that requires, a quiver full of arrows, with the ability and the will to use them. Russia obviously thought that Ukraine would be a push over and that a week’s work would see her completely subjugated. Had they thought there was a possibility that events would turn out as they have, I suspect they would have stayed on their side of the border.
When future weapons are developed, which tug at the reins of moral righteousness, before they sign up to an agreement that forbids their use by us, let us hope that our politicians consider themselves to be at war and fighting for their very existence against a foe, who might have those very same systems and be prepared to use them. In the extreme battle for survival, where Might is Right, Pragmatism must trump Ethics, because the latter is more likely to result in defeat, subjugation, and possible annihilation!
DEFENCE CAMPAIGNERS CALL ON GOVERNMENT TO PLEDGE LONG-TERM INVESTMENT IN NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RECRUITMENT
July 2023
On the eve of the NATO Summit, and with continued threats to international security from Russia and China, the campaign group Defence UK is urging Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to pledge “long-term and sustained investment” in recruitment and training for the Royal Navy, the British Army and the Royal Air Force.
Britain’s Armed Forces have been “chronically depleted” over the last two decades, says Defence UK, and “despite some recent small increases in the Ministry of Defence budget the additional funds committed by the Treasury have been insufficient to repair the damage done to our military, and in some cases appear to have been directed towards administration rather than front-line capabilities.”
Defence UK Director Andy Smith says: “It is shocking that British military personnel numbers are continuing to fall, in spite of the growing threats to UK and international security from Russia and China, and the urgency of rebuilding our Armed Forces, while the number of civil servants, lawyers and accountants employed by the MOD has increased.”
The campaign group, which was formed in 2007 as the United Kingdom National Defence Association (renamed Defence UK in 2019), is seeking an increase in resources for the Navy, Army and Air Force, and, specifically, an expansion of personnel numbers in all three services. Defence UK points to the latest MOD figures which reveal that “what amounts to a collapse in recruitment across all three services.”
With the Navy’s intake down 22 per cent in the last year, the Army down 14% and the RAF down 16%, all three services are currently far below even the minimum force levels planned by the Government in their latest defence review. “We are getting dangerously low on personnel numbers,” says Smith. “This is leaving gaping holes in our forces’ state of readiness, and the Government needs to address this problem urgently.”
Defence UK points out that the Royal Navy is down to 34,000 people and the RAF 33,000. “The British Army is now smaller than it has been at any time since the eighteenth century,” Smith explains. “We have 79,000 Army regulars, which is a drop of over 20,000 in just the last decade alone, and about 40,000 fewer than in the 1990s. Meanwhile, astonishingly, the number of the MOD’s civilian staff has been increasing all the time.”
Defence UK wants Armed Forces recruitment made a top priority and is calling on the British Government to:
· Recognise that military personnel numbers are far below the required levels, and massively ramp up recruitment for all three services.
· Admit that the British Armed Forces’ stocks and spares are seriously depleted and focus on building up reserves of equipment.
· Acknowledge that the UK is currently unable to fight a major war and must begin work now on getting our Forces into a state of preparedness.
· Ensure that Army and RAF units are positioned on the continent of Europe for the long term.
· Create the military and civil resilience necessary for a prolonged conventional conflict.
· Build up the United Kingdom’s domestic defence industries to increase our independence and security of supply.
· And, above all, take defence seriously.
Britain’s Armed Forces have been “chronically depleted” over the last two decades, says Defence UK, and “despite some recent small increases in the Ministry of Defence budget the additional funds committed by the Treasury have been insufficient to repair the damage done to our military, and in some cases appear to have been directed towards administration rather than front-line capabilities.”
Defence UK Director Andy Smith says: “It is shocking that British military personnel numbers are continuing to fall, in spite of the growing threats to UK and international security from Russia and China, and the urgency of rebuilding our Armed Forces, while the number of civil servants, lawyers and accountants employed by the MOD has increased.”
The campaign group, which was formed in 2007 as the United Kingdom National Defence Association (renamed Defence UK in 2019), is seeking an increase in resources for the Navy, Army and Air Force, and, specifically, an expansion of personnel numbers in all three services. Defence UK points to the latest MOD figures which reveal that “what amounts to a collapse in recruitment across all three services.”
With the Navy’s intake down 22 per cent in the last year, the Army down 14% and the RAF down 16%, all three services are currently far below even the minimum force levels planned by the Government in their latest defence review. “We are getting dangerously low on personnel numbers,” says Smith. “This is leaving gaping holes in our forces’ state of readiness, and the Government needs to address this problem urgently.”
Defence UK points out that the Royal Navy is down to 34,000 people and the RAF 33,000. “The British Army is now smaller than it has been at any time since the eighteenth century,” Smith explains. “We have 79,000 Army regulars, which is a drop of over 20,000 in just the last decade alone, and about 40,000 fewer than in the 1990s. Meanwhile, astonishingly, the number of the MOD’s civilian staff has been increasing all the time.”
Defence UK wants Armed Forces recruitment made a top priority and is calling on the British Government to:
· Recognise that military personnel numbers are far below the required levels, and massively ramp up recruitment for all three services.
· Admit that the British Armed Forces’ stocks and spares are seriously depleted and focus on building up reserves of equipment.
· Acknowledge that the UK is currently unable to fight a major war and must begin work now on getting our Forces into a state of preparedness.
· Ensure that Army and RAF units are positioned on the continent of Europe for the long term.
· Create the military and civil resilience necessary for a prolonged conventional conflict.
· Build up the United Kingdom’s domestic defence industries to increase our independence and security of supply.
· And, above all, take defence seriously.
POSEIDON - GOD OF THE SEA AND EARTHQUAKES
Poseidon, an appropriate name for Russia’s new, nuclear propelled and armed torpedo, designed to destroy port facilities and coastal cities. At 65 foot long with a speed of 100 knots, a 5,400-mile range, an operating depth down to 1,000 metres, and deployed from a 30,000 tonne submarine, Poseidon is a strategic weapon. Doubt has been poured on the claimed speed, but there seems little reason why a torpedo with nuclear propulsion could not travel at that speed, after all, the Royal Navy’s conventionally powered Spearfish torpedo can reputedly reach 80 knots. Spearfish was designed to achieve that speed so that it could catch Soviet submarines travelling at 40 knots. How will Spearfish handle, what is in effect an autonomous Kamikaze mini submarine, a drone, travelling at twice that speed? The lightweight torpedo, Stingray, can be air dropped ahead of the incoming Poseidon, but it travels at not much more than half the speed of Spearfish and if it fails in the initial interception, it will not get a second chance. At 100 knots, or anything approaching that speed, Poseidon is unlikely to be stealthy, but it might be the devil to catch and kill. Has the time come to place another arrow into the quiver, in the form of a nuclear depth bomb?
During the Cold War the Royal Navy deployed the WE177A nuclear depth bomb, which could be dropped from a helicopter or, one assumes, from an RAF maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). Hydrostatic pressure compresses any blast and thus the kill range of a nuclear depth bomb would not be large, but it would probably be much greater than a conventional torpedo, especially that of the lightweight Stingray. Destroying the mother submarine before she fires the Poseidon would of course be the ideal solution, but if that is not possible and conventional homing torpedoes do not stop it, what then? Unlike the Russian military, where the use of nuclear weapons may be devolved to the decision of an operational commander, UK forces require a political OK before they can be used. In that decision making process proportionality will always be a consideration. However, if a nuclear propelled and armed ‘aquatic’ missile has already been launched and is bound for the UK, with conventional weapons failing to stop it, is there really a decision to be made? If Royal Navy helicopters are unable to intercept and destroy it, our own Poseidon, the Boeing P8 MPA, suitably armed, may have the speed and range to do the job.
In the ladder of deterrence from the rifle to the ballistic missile, the nuclear depth bomb can form one of the rungs. The one that says to the Kremlin, ‘your Poseidon can be stopped - it is not as invulnerable as you might think’.
During the Cold War the Royal Navy deployed the WE177A nuclear depth bomb, which could be dropped from a helicopter or, one assumes, from an RAF maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). Hydrostatic pressure compresses any blast and thus the kill range of a nuclear depth bomb would not be large, but it would probably be much greater than a conventional torpedo, especially that of the lightweight Stingray. Destroying the mother submarine before she fires the Poseidon would of course be the ideal solution, but if that is not possible and conventional homing torpedoes do not stop it, what then? Unlike the Russian military, where the use of nuclear weapons may be devolved to the decision of an operational commander, UK forces require a political OK before they can be used. In that decision making process proportionality will always be a consideration. However, if a nuclear propelled and armed ‘aquatic’ missile has already been launched and is bound for the UK, with conventional weapons failing to stop it, is there really a decision to be made? If Royal Navy helicopters are unable to intercept and destroy it, our own Poseidon, the Boeing P8 MPA, suitably armed, may have the speed and range to do the job.
In the ladder of deterrence from the rifle to the ballistic missile, the nuclear depth bomb can form one of the rungs. The one that says to the Kremlin, ‘your Poseidon can be stopped - it is not as invulnerable as you might think’.
"Defence UK welcomes Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's announcement today (13 March 2023) of a £5bn boost to defence funding. We have been calling for a significant increase in the defence budget for some time in view of the constantly growing threats to international security from both Russia and China, and the latest funding announcement by the Prime Minister is a step in the right direction. However, the precise timescale for this new funding, and the delivery of equipment, will be crucial. We hope that this initial £5bn will be the first in a series of increases to repair our hollowed-out Armed Forces. There is great urgency to ramping up defence spending, and we urge the Government to ensure that the new funds are properly allocated, in a timely manner, so that we can begin swiftly to rebuild our depleted military capabilities."
- Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK
Will Defence Get what it Needs?
The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is on record as saying that Defence will get what it needs. The Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, has, in the past, been reported as claiming that Defence spending should be increased to 4% of the country’s GDP. The Integrated Review (IR) was published on 16th March 2021 but as a result of the Ukraine War it is already being reviewed and its Refresh (the IRR) should be published very soon. Lessons from that war have led the army to signal what their most immediate needs are, which they have termed 4+1.
The membership of Defence UK's reaction to the present critical situation
The membership of Defence UK includes some experienced and senior people, both military and civilian, a dozen of whom sit in the House of Lords. The members were asked earlier this year: “What should the UK do (a) immediately and urgently, (b) within the next 12 months and (c) assuming Mr. Putin gives us that long – within the next 5 years?”
The main message is that Britain’s armed forces are in no fit state to fight a war with Russia. It is not simply that our Armed Forces are not big enough but they also have some critical weaknesses, driven by the desire to economise and ‘justified’ by the assumption we won’t need to fight anyone in the near future. In the case of the Army, for over a decade the main weakness has been a failure even to define what the Army is for. That the army is now being re-organised to face developing threats is recognised, but aspirations must be matched with the money to realise them. An immediate requirement is the Army's need for a plentiful supply of ammunition, an obvious conclusion to draw from the present conflict. Some orders have at least now been placed to replace the ammunition donated to the Ukraine, but this needs to be continued and stocks increased. However good an Army, Navy or Air Force might otherwise be, without adequate ammunition it is lost.
Other weaknesses? We must recognise the nation’s vulnerability to long-range conventional missile strikes and do something about it! Despite having far more surface-to-air missiles than Britain, and despite shooting down a large proportion of the cruise missiles fired at them, the people of Ukraine are still suffering from the effects of the Russian assault upon their energy grids and other vital infrastructure. Britain’s defences against such a missile attack would be totally inadequate.
The RAF is now down to little more than a hundred Typhoon fighters plus a handful of F-35B fighters (grudgingly) shared with the Navy. Fifty, or so, Typhoons are being prematurely scrapped, not even put into storage! Those that remain are all concentrated on three undefended airbases and there is a serious need to disperse these few assets and defend them properly.
The supply ships to support the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers have only just been ordered and won’t all be in service for another decade. This is an example of ‘gapping’ – leaving a deficiency to be filled at a later date (in the hope that nothing bad happens in the meantime. It is by no means the only such example.
In the longer term we must (among other things):
¨ Create military and civil resilience necessary for a prolonged conventional conflict.
¨ Weapons stocks and spares must be adequate.
¨ Army & RAF units should be positioned on the continent long-term.
¨ Build up reserves of equipment (don’t just dispose of assets)
¨ Build up domestic defence industries.
Above all, the political class in Britain need to take defence seriously in a way they have not hitherto.
The main message is that Britain’s armed forces are in no fit state to fight a war with Russia. It is not simply that our Armed Forces are not big enough but they also have some critical weaknesses, driven by the desire to economise and ‘justified’ by the assumption we won’t need to fight anyone in the near future. In the case of the Army, for over a decade the main weakness has been a failure even to define what the Army is for. That the army is now being re-organised to face developing threats is recognised, but aspirations must be matched with the money to realise them. An immediate requirement is the Army's need for a plentiful supply of ammunition, an obvious conclusion to draw from the present conflict. Some orders have at least now been placed to replace the ammunition donated to the Ukraine, but this needs to be continued and stocks increased. However good an Army, Navy or Air Force might otherwise be, without adequate ammunition it is lost.
Other weaknesses? We must recognise the nation’s vulnerability to long-range conventional missile strikes and do something about it! Despite having far more surface-to-air missiles than Britain, and despite shooting down a large proportion of the cruise missiles fired at them, the people of Ukraine are still suffering from the effects of the Russian assault upon their energy grids and other vital infrastructure. Britain’s defences against such a missile attack would be totally inadequate.
The RAF is now down to little more than a hundred Typhoon fighters plus a handful of F-35B fighters (grudgingly) shared with the Navy. Fifty, or so, Typhoons are being prematurely scrapped, not even put into storage! Those that remain are all concentrated on three undefended airbases and there is a serious need to disperse these few assets and defend them properly.
The supply ships to support the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers have only just been ordered and won’t all be in service for another decade. This is an example of ‘gapping’ – leaving a deficiency to be filled at a later date (in the hope that nothing bad happens in the meantime. It is by no means the only such example.
In the longer term we must (among other things):
¨ Create military and civil resilience necessary for a prolonged conventional conflict.
¨ Weapons stocks and spares must be adequate.
¨ Army & RAF units should be positioned on the continent long-term.
¨ Build up reserves of equipment (don’t just dispose of assets)
¨ Build up domestic defence industries.
Above all, the political class in Britain need to take defence seriously in a way they have not hitherto.
Challenge the Russians with Challenger
The UK 2021 Integrated Review (IR) indicated a reduction in the army’s tank numbers from 227 to 148. The 148 to be upgraded from Challenger 2 to 3, with the remaining 79 being mothballed or disposed of. There may be better tanks around now but Challenger 2 is still very capable and the Ukrainian Army could put those 79 to very good use. Presently both sides in the Ukrainian war are waiting for the ground to freeze so that their forces regain mobility. However Spring and the consequent Sea of Mud, which will put tracked vehicles at a premium, is only a few months away. If the suggested Review of the IR does not indicate that the British army should now retain those 79 tanks and upgrade them to the same level as the 148, we should quickly train the Ukrainians in their operation and hand them over. Challenger is a heavily armoured tank, with a long reach. With them the Ukrainian army will be better equipped to take the anticipated Russian assault on the shoulder while using their lighter, highly mobile and missile equipped, forces in flanking attacks.
Fred Dupuy
Chairman, Defence UK.
18th December 2022
Fred Dupuy
Chairman, Defence UK.
18th December 2022
autumn statement
The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, has reaffirmed the Government's commitment to Defence spending and has pledged not to cut funding for our Armed Forces, but disappointingly he has stopped short of increasing the Defence budget. By only maintaining the budget at its current level, and not being willing to move beyond the Nato-stipulated figure (2% of GDP), in effect this means continued reductions to the resourcing of our military, due to the combination of price inflation (higher in Defence than any other area of Government spending) and the shrinking of the UK economy as we go into recession. With growing threats from Russia, China, Iran and other rogue states, it is high time Rishi Sunak's Government recognised the need to ramp up Defence spending, committing to expenditure of at least 3% of GDP on the Armed Forces by 2025 at the latest, not waiting till 2030.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
22nd November 2022
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
22nd November 2022
Admiral of the Fleet Lord Boyce
We are sad to announce the death of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Boyce, former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and a founding Patron of the UK National Defence Association, forerunner of Defence UK. Lord Boyce was a staunch supporter of our association in its early days and provided invaluable advice and wise counsel to our directors. An obituary of Lord Boyce has been published by The Times.
Pipeline and Cable Security - Help is at Hand
When a survey vessel eventually dives its tethered remote control vehicle (ROV) to inspect the breaches in the Nord Stream 1 & 2 pipelines, it will confirm if the explosions came from within or without the pipes themselves. The offshore oil and gas industry used to regularly inspect their subsea pipelines, for structural integrity, by flying a tethered ROV along them, with the survey vessel following at a short distance. That operation was, in part, replaced by an intelligent drone that was swum along the inside of the pipe to measure wall thickness as it proceeded. It is standard practice to push a plug along the inside of the pipe to prove a clear run as a part of the pipeline commissioning procedure, and these plugs are known as pigs. The wall measuring plugs are known as intelligent pigs. It is not beyond the realms of imagination that an intelligent pig could actually be a suicidal explosive variant. This form of attack would only apply of course where an aggressor has control of one end of the pipeline, particularly the end from which the flow starts. Where an attack would have to be made with an externally applied munition, help is at hand from the civilian sector. The various offshore service companies own many seabed operations vessels which operate large work class ROVs, possessing sonar and underwater cameras, that are capable of continuously flying the pipes and with their manipulators pulling away, into clear water, any explosive or suspicious item. These vessels and their crews are for hire on the open market and working with naval assets, to monitor submarine activity, they will provide the ability to inspect, guard and, to a point, safeguard our seabed pipelines and communication cables. The Royal Navy actually possesses such a vessel, laid up and awaiting sale or disposal. RFA Diligence is in fact a former civilian dive support and ROV operating vessel, previously employed in the offshore oil and gas industry. Maybe the MOD should recommission this 41 year old vessel, while they consider purchasing existing, but more modern, commercial vessels to replace her?
Fred Dupuy
Chairman, Defence UK.
2nd October 2022
Fred Dupuy
Chairman, Defence UK.
2nd October 2022
defence budget
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace promises that the UK Defence budget will be increased to £52bn in order to 'grow the Armed Forces' in response to Russian aggression. We welcome the Secretary of State's comments today (25 September) but we remain concerned about the timescale for implementing increases in the budget and rebuilding the strength and capabilities of Britain's Forces.
We agree that priority must be given to meeting the threat from Russia, but the dangers to national and international security from China and other rogue states must not be ignored; nor should the continued threat from radical Islamists. We await further details from the MOD on how our Armed Forces and their capabilities are to be expanded.
Andrew Smith
Director, Defence UK
25th September 2022
We agree that priority must be given to meeting the threat from Russia, but the dangers to national and international security from China and other rogue states must not be ignored; nor should the continued threat from radical Islamists. We await further details from the MOD on how our Armed Forces and their capabilities are to be expanded.
Andrew Smith
Director, Defence UK
25th September 2022
London Bridge is down
The call sign that reverberated around all UK government departments, on Thursday 8th September 2022, activated contingency plans that had been in existence for at least two decades and which culminated in the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. At the pinnacle of that process were the UK's armed forces, which co-ordinated seamlessly with many other government departments, to provide a spectacle the likes of which the world has rarely seen. It was very easy while watching those service men and women, resplendent in their ceremonial uniforms and displaying disciplined precision, to forget that away from the streets of London, they are trained and prepared, to stand into danger in the defence of this country and its ideals. Many of the 6,000 military personnel who were involved in that funeral procession had been recalled from deployments abroad, where they switched instantly from an active operational stance to a ceremonial one; such is the ability of our Army, Navy and Air Force. Contingency planning is the Modus Operandi for the UK's armed forces. They have planned and they train to step in and give advice or take control in situations where civil authorities may be overwhelmed. Natural calamities and the Covid Pandemic are proof of that. They are the thread of steel that runs through British Society; a thread that has been drawn thin almost to breaking point by many years of government underfunding. Should that thread break, this country will be much the poorer for its loss.
Fred Dupuy
Chairman, Defence UK
Fred Dupuy
Chairman, Defence UK
her majesty queen elizabeth II
We mourn the passing of Her Majesty The Queen who, throughout her 70 year long reign, embodied the values and traditions of Britishness, and who exemplified the core military values of loyalty, duty and service. As head of Britain's Armed Forces we could not have had a more inspiring and dedicated Sovereign. She will be greatly missed by all serving and retired members of the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force, and the wider 'Defence family'. We were proud to serve The Queen and will always value and cherish the long years of dutiful service that The Queen gave to our country - a tradition of service which is upheld by her son and heir, our new King.
god save the king
new leader of the conservative party
Defence UK congratulates Liz Truss on her election as Leader of the Conservative Party and we hope that as Prime Minister she will swiftly make good on her pledge to increase funding for Britain's Armed Forces to at least 3 per cent of UK GDP.
The threats to the security of the United Kingdom and the Western world have grown inexorably in recent years and we currently face direct challenges from Putin's Russia and Communist China which Britain and our allies must be prepared to meet. To do so requires a strong diplomatic and economic strategy against Russia and China, and considerably expanded British and NATO military capabilities.
Britain under our new Prime Minister can lead the West by example, increasing the UK's defence budget and enlarging our Forces, and working to ensure that our NATO partners do likewise.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
5 September 2022
The threats to the security of the United Kingdom and the Western world have grown inexorably in recent years and we currently face direct challenges from Putin's Russia and Communist China which Britain and our allies must be prepared to meet. To do so requires a strong diplomatic and economic strategy against Russia and China, and considerably expanded British and NATO military capabilities.
Britain under our new Prime Minister can lead the West by example, increasing the UK's defence budget and enlarging our Forces, and working to ensure that our NATO partners do likewise.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
5 September 2022
conservative leadership - Members' vote
Defence UK congratulates The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP and The Rt Hon Liz Truss MP on being selected by Conservative Members of Parliament as candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party and premiership of the United Kingdom.
During the coming weeks we hope to hear a lot more from both of these candidates on how they will rebuild and strengthen the United Kingdom's defence and security capabilities. We look forward in particular to hearing each candidate set out the timetable that their administration will follow for the vital expansion of Britain's Armed Forces, in light of the growing threats to the international rules-based order from rogue states such as Russia, China and Iran.
Whilst setting out a plan for the stewardship of the UK economy is a priority for our next Prime Minister, equally important is the urgent need to address the defence and security of Britain and the Western Alliance at this critical time. Economic success and effective defence go hand in hand.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
21st July 2022
During the coming weeks we hope to hear a lot more from both of these candidates on how they will rebuild and strengthen the United Kingdom's defence and security capabilities. We look forward in particular to hearing each candidate set out the timetable that their administration will follow for the vital expansion of Britain's Armed Forces, in light of the growing threats to the international rules-based order from rogue states such as Russia, China and Iran.
Whilst setting out a plan for the stewardship of the UK economy is a priority for our next Prime Minister, equally important is the urgent need to address the defence and security of Britain and the Western Alliance at this critical time. Economic success and effective defence go hand in hand.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
21st July 2022
Conservative Leadership election
It is heartening that several of the candidates for the leadership of the governing party have pledged to increase defence spending if they are elected, but here at Defence UK we hope that they understand the extent of underfunding that currently exists across all three Services. We have tried to make the Government, and Members of Parliament of all parties, aware of the problem over recent years, and perhaps now at last the message is getting through. Let us hope so. Repairing the damage that has been done to Britain's Armed Forces by years of under-funding (by governments of both major parties) is far more important, and urgent, for the next Prime Minister than cutting taxes.
We were also very pleased to hear one of the leadership candidates, former defence minister Penny Mordaunt, calling for the formation of a Civil Defence Force. The previous Civil Defence Corps stood down in 1968 but here we are, more than five decades later, with increasing threats to the UK's national security, as well as a multiplicity of civil emergencies for which we usually nowadays turn to our Armed Forces, so it makes sense to reintroduce a Civil Defence organisation that is capable of responding to such situations. Defence UK therefore welcomes and supports Penny Mordaunt's proposal for a CD Force.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
13th July 2022
We were also very pleased to hear one of the leadership candidates, former defence minister Penny Mordaunt, calling for the formation of a Civil Defence Force. The previous Civil Defence Corps stood down in 1968 but here we are, more than five decades later, with increasing threats to the UK's national security, as well as a multiplicity of civil emergencies for which we usually nowadays turn to our Armed Forces, so it makes sense to reintroduce a Civil Defence organisation that is capable of responding to such situations. Defence UK therefore welcomes and supports Penny Mordaunt's proposal for a CD Force.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
13th July 2022
UKRAINE: A WAKE-UP CALL
"We should be clear; our present theory of deterrence has, in this vital case, failed and may no longer be fit for purpose. Its credibility in Cold War times rested on Allied ability to respond to attack from the Soviet Union at a variety of levels, from a strong foundation of conventional capability. Key to its success was a demonstrable means to match the aggression and where necessary escalate. It included nuclear capabilities at modest level of Artillery-Fired Atomic Projectiles, through Intermediate Range and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Much thought was given to the conduct of a conflict involving attack from the Soviet Union which was examined regularly by NATO governments and supporting military staff in carefully conducted exercises.
Today, NATO’s conventional capabilities do not provide that range of options to its members, a consequence of European Defence Budgets being closer to 1% of GDP than the 3% deemed a minimum previously. Even in the UK it is not clear that we are spending 2% of GDP on genuine defence. Moreover, our GDP is forecast to decline next year and we are facing inflation forecast at 10%. The 2021 Integrated Review, whatever its merits or demerits, is wholly unaffordable on this basis. This is a major weakness apparent to Putin and surely to our own military who are charged with conducting a strategy undermined by years of inattention."
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon and Vice-Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, writing in Volume 4 of the Defence UK Journal Pro Patria.
Today, NATO’s conventional capabilities do not provide that range of options to its members, a consequence of European Defence Budgets being closer to 1% of GDP than the 3% deemed a minimum previously. Even in the UK it is not clear that we are spending 2% of GDP on genuine defence. Moreover, our GDP is forecast to decline next year and we are facing inflation forecast at 10%. The 2021 Integrated Review, whatever its merits or demerits, is wholly unaffordable on this basis. This is a major weakness apparent to Putin and surely to our own military who are charged with conducting a strategy undermined by years of inattention."
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon and Vice-Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, writing in Volume 4 of the Defence UK Journal Pro Patria.
further statement on ukraine
In his Spring Statement today (23 March), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, made clear how much the Russia-Ukraine War will affect the nation's finances. He failed, however, to recognise the connection between this war - with its devastating knock-on effect on the UK economy - and the military weakness of Britain and our NATO allies which led to Putin's invasion of Ukraine. This failure to deter Russia is itself is a consequence of political short-termism and of politicians' seeming inability to understand the true cost implications of our present inadequate defence and security provision.
If Mr Sunak wishes to avoid more conflicts of this kind, and an even greater danger from rogue states such as Putin's Russia, with the economic impact that this will inevitably have on Britain, he needs to ensure that our Armed Forces are properly financed - which they are not at present - and that the UK is, with our NATO allies, ready, willing and able to deter any further aggression by Putin. The Chancellor has missed the opportunity with this Spring Statement to announce an uplift to the Defence budget, but this need not be the end of the matter. He should follow up the Statement by acknowledging the urgent need to increase Defence spending and by finding the money from HM Treasury to do what needs to be done. And the sooner the better.
Two per cent of GDP is not enough to provide effective national security. We urge the Government to commit to spending at least 3 per cent of GDP on Defence, and to move towards that now. Some of our NATO countries are already, belatedly, starting to ramp up their military expenditure, but not enough of them. In military terms the UK is one of the two most important Western powers, alongside the USA, and apart from ensuring our own security we need to set an example to the rest of NATO. For all our sakes, it's time to invest in Defence, Mr Sunak!
Andy Smith, Director, Defence UK
23rd March 2022
If Mr Sunak wishes to avoid more conflicts of this kind, and an even greater danger from rogue states such as Putin's Russia, with the economic impact that this will inevitably have on Britain, he needs to ensure that our Armed Forces are properly financed - which they are not at present - and that the UK is, with our NATO allies, ready, willing and able to deter any further aggression by Putin. The Chancellor has missed the opportunity with this Spring Statement to announce an uplift to the Defence budget, but this need not be the end of the matter. He should follow up the Statement by acknowledging the urgent need to increase Defence spending and by finding the money from HM Treasury to do what needs to be done. And the sooner the better.
Two per cent of GDP is not enough to provide effective national security. We urge the Government to commit to spending at least 3 per cent of GDP on Defence, and to move towards that now. Some of our NATO countries are already, belatedly, starting to ramp up their military expenditure, but not enough of them. In military terms the UK is one of the two most important Western powers, alongside the USA, and apart from ensuring our own security we need to set an example to the rest of NATO. For all our sakes, it's time to invest in Defence, Mr Sunak!
Andy Smith, Director, Defence UK
23rd March 2022
statement on ukraine
With war raging in Ukraine, and with the nations of the Atlantic Alliance urgently seeking a more effective strategy to meet the growing challenge from Putin's Russia - which now threatens to push at the very borders of NATO - the British Government must immediately reassess its 2020 Integrated Review of defence, security and foreign affairs. In particular, ministers must rethink their short-sighted decision to reduce personnel numbers in our Armed Forces. Now is the time for the Government to expand our Armed Services, not to continue the policy and practice of previous administrations to squeeze staffing levels in the Royal Navy, Army and RAF so that they are permanently undermanned.
"This week the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his Spring Statement to the House of Commons. We urge him to take this opportunity to announce a significant increase in the UK's defence budget, bringing military expenditure to at least 3 per cent of GDP. Present levels of defence spending are clearly inadequate and put our nation's security at risk. Raising the MOD budget to 3 per cent of GDP is not just affordable, it is absolutely essential. War is so much more expensive than defence and deterrence, so if the Government wants to ensure the safety and security of the UK, and to promote peace and prosperity for the future, it must invest in our Armed Forces. Britain must spend to defend.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
22nd March 2022
"This week the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his Spring Statement to the House of Commons. We urge him to take this opportunity to announce a significant increase in the UK's defence budget, bringing military expenditure to at least 3 per cent of GDP. Present levels of defence spending are clearly inadequate and put our nation's security at risk. Raising the MOD budget to 3 per cent of GDP is not just affordable, it is absolutely essential. War is so much more expensive than defence and deterrence, so if the Government wants to ensure the safety and security of the UK, and to promote peace and prosperity for the future, it must invest in our Armed Forces. Britain must spend to defend.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
22nd March 2022
UKraine
Russia's invasion of Ukraine must be met with the most robust British and Western political, economic and military response. It is not too late for full mobilisation across Nato to counter Russia; indeed this is essential if we are to stand any chance of deterring further Russian aggression. British and Nato reinforcements must be rapidly deployed to all of our allies and partners facing the threat from Russia.
Vladimir Putin is set upon recreating the old Soviet Union. He thinks he can get away with this because of Nato weakness and the reluctance of Western politicians to deploy our military assets. We have to prove him wrong.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
24th February 2022
Vladimir Putin is set upon recreating the old Soviet Union. He thinks he can get away with this because of Nato weakness and the reluctance of Western politicians to deploy our military assets. We have to prove him wrong.
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
24th February 2022
right sort of troops, in the right number, at the right place and the right time
“Someone has unhelpfully stated that the combined armed forces of NATO outnumber those of Russia. This is true in theory but misleading in practice. In order to win a battle or war you have to have the right sort of troops, in the right number, at the right place and the right time. Fail badly on any one of these criteria and you lose. How many of NATO’s troops are of the right type? If you aspire to fighting the Russian Army you need armour, mobility and firepower among other attributes. The British Army has just two armoured infantry brigades, and one helicopter brigade. They may not have the best equipment any more but good enough. They are the right sort of troops, but the rest of the British Army is of marginal use in this kind of war. In the right place? Those brigades are stationed in Britain and it would take weeks at best to get them re-deployed to the continent. So they fail the right place/right time test. And the Russian Army has about 60 or more such brigades so they may fail the ‘right number’ criterion as well. Similar arguments would apply to all other NATO armies so in practice only a fraction of NATO’s paper strength would turn out to be real and useable. The next round of conflict might be Russia vs the three Baltic states, plus whatever reinforcements we can get to them in time. It is unlikely that those re-inforcements would come from Turkey for example, the logistics would be horrendous. It might be Russia vs Poland (plus reinforcements). In theory Spain could send an armoured brigade to re-inforce Poland but I doubt if any contingency plans exist for doing this. It won’t be Russia vs the whole of NATO. Geography is on Russia’s side. They have internal lines of communication and can quickly transfer troops from one front to another, by road and/or rail thus giving themselves local superiority when and where it counts. It would be a larger proportion of Russia’s forces against a smaller proportion of ours and Russia is likely to have local superiority where and when it counts.”
Steve Coltman (Director, Defence UK)
4th March 2022
Steve Coltman (Director, Defence UK)
4th March 2022
Parallel Lines
For South Ossetia and Abkhazia (Russo-Georgian War) - Read the Rhineland
For Crimea - Read Anschluss (the German occupation of Austria)
For the Donbas Region of Ukraine - Read Sudetenland
For the rest of Ukraine - Read Czechoslovakia??
For the Baltic States - Read Poland 1939???
For China (watching from the sidelines) - Read Japan (an axis power from 27 Sept 1940)
If you want to know the future, look at the past - Albert Einstein
Fred Dupuy
Non-Executive Director Defence UK
8th February 2022
For Crimea - Read Anschluss (the German occupation of Austria)
For the Donbas Region of Ukraine - Read Sudetenland
For the rest of Ukraine - Read Czechoslovakia??
For the Baltic States - Read Poland 1939???
For China (watching from the sidelines) - Read Japan (an axis power from 27 Sept 1940)
If you want to know the future, look at the past - Albert Einstein
Fred Dupuy
Non-Executive Director Defence UK
8th February 2022
statement on ukraine
"The UK Government is right to take a firm line with President Putin, and to warn against any possible Russian incursion onto Ukraine's sovereign territory. But our warnings need to be underpinned by a willingness to use British military force alongside NATO allies, in order to deter and if necessary resist Russians aggression. Any violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, and any threat to the security of any other European nation, must be met with a resolute response by NATO. The Prime Minister is right to seek to coordinate this Western response with Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary-General of NATO and the President of the United States. Britain can and should play a major role in any NATO mission to support Ukraine but tough rhetoric must be matched by a readiness if necessary to deploy British troops and aircraft in conjunction with our NATO allies."
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
25th January 2022
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
25th January 2022
eye in the sky
The published Out of Service Date (OSD) for the Merlin helicopter fleet is 2029. With those helicopters will go the Navy's airborne early warning and monitoring radar, Crowsnest. What will replace that Eye in the Sky? For some time there has been a suggestion that a radar married to a long endurance Unmanned Airborne Vehicle (UAV) might be the ideal replacement. The Royal Air Force (RAF) has for several years operated the very capable General Atomics (GA) MQ-9 Reaper UAV and will soon be replacing it with an upgraded version of that aircraft. To be called Protector in RAF service, that replacement has recently completed a series of system level tests, including the effects of high-intensity electromagnetic radiation across the whole operational spectrum, and it is scheduled to enter service in 2023. The MQ-9 in it's Sea Guardian configuration fitted with an Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar for surface search and observation has been extensively and successfully tested by both the Italians and the Japanese. If fitted instead with an Active Electronically Scanned Array radar (AESA) for airborne, as well as surface, search and tracking, such an aircraft would make an ideal eye in the sky for deployed naval forces. Protector is capable of carrying the same sensors as the Sea Guardian and operating in the maritime domain but, unfortunately, it is only suitable for operation from good quality long runways and thus it is not deployable in an expeditionary capacity from aircraft carrier decks or short austere landing strips. GA however have produced a solution.
Enter the latest derivative of the MQ-9 family - Mojave. Fitted with a wing optimised for short take off and landing, a robust undercarriage for operation from unimproved surfaces, a stronger structure to absorb hard landings, a propeller protection skid, and a Rolls Royce 450 hp engine, Mojave can be operated, fully loaded, from 300 metre austere landing strips and, it is suggested, aircraft carriers. Operating at an altitude of 50,000 feet for 25 hours +, these UAVs will have a line of sight distance to the horizon of 270 miles and thus a direct control and communications link from a naval task force at that range, with a satellite link for distances greater than that. A carrier operating a Mojave UAV, suitably radar equipped, and maintaining line of sight communication, would therefore have surface radar coverage of over 500 miles and potentially for airborne targets a range greater than that. Of course, when operating at a great distance from a task force, any UAV will be vulnerable to enemy action and some of the UK's potential peer opponents posses long range fighter aircraft that can be pushed forward to swat the Eye in the Sky. To counter that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Mojave could be armed with an air to air missile such as the MBDA Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and various decoys to provide her with a self defence capability. With six underwing and one centre line hard point for weapon and sensor carriage, this UAV has a load carrying capability of 3,600 pounds (1.633 tonnes). The load-out can include electro/electronic sensors, radar and missile armament. With another MBDA missile, Brimstone, already intended for integration into Mojave's stable-mate, Protector, one assumes that it will be an easy fit for both that weapon and possibly ASRAAM onto any UK purchase of Mojave.
Britain's armed forces are presently being optimised for expeditionary warfare and Mojave is one weapon system that can complement and enhance their effectiveness. The carrier battle group is again a part of the UK's armoury and a credible long sighted Eye in the Sky should be considered a primary and essential system when equipping that force. Additionally, the Royal Navy (RN) and RAF's F35B aircraft are eminently suitable for deployment into areas where extensive aircraft handling facilities may not be available. That is the essence of expeditionary warfare, i.e. being able to reach further and operate from places that a potential enemy least expects. It is therefore incumbent upon the UK to provide the over-watch necessary to protect those forward deployed forces and also to provided the additional combat power that UAV's can supply.
Fred Dupuy, Non-Executive Director of DefenceUK.
31st January 2022
Enter the latest derivative of the MQ-9 family - Mojave. Fitted with a wing optimised for short take off and landing, a robust undercarriage for operation from unimproved surfaces, a stronger structure to absorb hard landings, a propeller protection skid, and a Rolls Royce 450 hp engine, Mojave can be operated, fully loaded, from 300 metre austere landing strips and, it is suggested, aircraft carriers. Operating at an altitude of 50,000 feet for 25 hours +, these UAVs will have a line of sight distance to the horizon of 270 miles and thus a direct control and communications link from a naval task force at that range, with a satellite link for distances greater than that. A carrier operating a Mojave UAV, suitably radar equipped, and maintaining line of sight communication, would therefore have surface radar coverage of over 500 miles and potentially for airborne targets a range greater than that. Of course, when operating at a great distance from a task force, any UAV will be vulnerable to enemy action and some of the UK's potential peer opponents posses long range fighter aircraft that can be pushed forward to swat the Eye in the Sky. To counter that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Mojave could be armed with an air to air missile such as the MBDA Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and various decoys to provide her with a self defence capability. With six underwing and one centre line hard point for weapon and sensor carriage, this UAV has a load carrying capability of 3,600 pounds (1.633 tonnes). The load-out can include electro/electronic sensors, radar and missile armament. With another MBDA missile, Brimstone, already intended for integration into Mojave's stable-mate, Protector, one assumes that it will be an easy fit for both that weapon and possibly ASRAAM onto any UK purchase of Mojave.
Britain's armed forces are presently being optimised for expeditionary warfare and Mojave is one weapon system that can complement and enhance their effectiveness. The carrier battle group is again a part of the UK's armoury and a credible long sighted Eye in the Sky should be considered a primary and essential system when equipping that force. Additionally, the Royal Navy (RN) and RAF's F35B aircraft are eminently suitable for deployment into areas where extensive aircraft handling facilities may not be available. That is the essence of expeditionary warfare, i.e. being able to reach further and operate from places that a potential enemy least expects. It is therefore incumbent upon the UK to provide the over-watch necessary to protect those forward deployed forces and also to provided the additional combat power that UAV's can supply.
Fred Dupuy, Non-Executive Director of DefenceUK.
31st January 2022
The "future soldier programme"
"Defence UK is not convinced that the 'Future Soldier' programme will deliver the breadth and depth of Army capabilities which it promises. Whilst we welcome the new investment in Army equipment, and the creation of the new Ranger Regiment for deployment in Africa and Asia, we remain extremely concerned about the overall reduction in Army manpower. Under the new plans, the British Army will shrink to just 73,000 full-time Regulars and fewer than 30,000 part-time Reservists. That will make it the smallest Army we have had at our disposal in more than two hundred years! As the world becomes a more dangerous place, with rogue states and terrorist networks posing ever greater threats to UK and Western security, and with the NATO alliance increasingly reliant on the UK contribution, now is not the time to risk weakening the British Army. We urge the Government to reconsider the scale of this reduction in overall personnel numbers."
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
26th November 2021
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
26th November 2021
And Now there are Seven
Thank Goodness the Yanks are Here!
The recent loss of an F35B aircraft from the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (QE), reducing the British contribution to her fighter bomber complement to just seven aircraft, is yet another indication, if one is needed, that the UK's armed forces lack resource; basically capability and capacity. In this instance, insufficient aircraft numbers and the ability to recover them when they fall into the water! With the lost aircraft now sitting on the seabed in deep water and an operation being rolled out to recover it before the Russians do, there will be a scramble within the MOD to find a suitable dynamically positioned seabed operations vessel, from an ally or the commercial sector, that can carry out the salvage operation. The RN's vessel that would have been capable of that, RFA Diligence, herself an ex commercial dive support and seabed operations vessel, was recently seen awaiting disposal, in stripped out form, at Cammell Laird's yard in Birkenhead! The planned Multi Role Ocean Surveillance Ship (MROSS), which may be able to undertake such tasks, seems to be a long way down the procurement path and no-one is quite sure when she will be operational. Historically aircraft attrition rates in naval aviation have been high and with the UK back in the game of operating aircraft carriers the loss of this aircraft should act as a siren call to speed up the procurement of seabed operation vessels. With UK forces now operating East of Suez in greater strength, and with carrier operations as a part of that mix, MROSS numbers should be sufficient to have one based either side of that canal. The offshore oil and gas industry is presently experiencing a difficult period and so now may be a good time to swoop in and pick up a couple of good but relatively inexpensive seabed operation vessels and then modify them to naval requirements, as was done in 1983 when the MV Stena Inspector became RFA Diligence.
The fact that the UK has so far ordered only 48 of the planned 138 F35Bs has a legitimate reason. The manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, appears to be dragging its feet in matching the British Meteor air to air beyond visual range (BVR) missile, probably the best of its type in the world, to the F35B, and Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is fully justified in holding off on further orders until he sees positive movement and results on that issue. In this he is following the line set out in the Government's Defence & Security Industrial Strategy (DSIS), which aims to support and enhance the UK's defence industrial base. The incorporation of the Meteor into the F35's armoury will enable the missile's manufacturer, MBDA, to compete commercially when international customers consider purchasing that aircraft. In recent times that support has not always been there. The decision to accept 50 Boeing AH64E Apache helicopters with the American Joint Air and Ground Missile (JAGM), instead of the UK's Brimstone (another MBDA product), has inserted a wedge between that British weapon and some of its potential customers. This wedge will adversely affect Brimstone's sales potential when future purchasers of the AH64E are looking for a similar missile to arm their land and sea forces. One wonders if the JAGM's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, is attempting to insert a similar wedge between MBDA's potential customers for Meteor? Possibly having been bitten once over Brimstone, Ben Wallace is reluctant to let that happen again with Meteor and, if it enhances the UK's ability to produce military equipment at scale, he is right to accept a temporary short fall in F35 numbers. His action (or inaction) sends the signal that if a foreign company wants the UK to buy its equipment, then it must invest in this country, and in the way we stipulate. Only then, with a capable defence industry which can produce at scale and reduce unit cost, may we be able to overcome some of our general resource problems.
In the period of reduced RN/RAF F35 numbers however, as the title indicates, Thank Goodness the Yanks are Here. In this case, with ten US Marine Corp F35Bs, which now make up almost two thirds of the QE's fixed wing air group.
Fred Dupuy
Non Exec Director of DefenceUK.
30th November 2021
The fact that the UK has so far ordered only 48 of the planned 138 F35Bs has a legitimate reason. The manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, appears to be dragging its feet in matching the British Meteor air to air beyond visual range (BVR) missile, probably the best of its type in the world, to the F35B, and Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is fully justified in holding off on further orders until he sees positive movement and results on that issue. In this he is following the line set out in the Government's Defence & Security Industrial Strategy (DSIS), which aims to support and enhance the UK's defence industrial base. The incorporation of the Meteor into the F35's armoury will enable the missile's manufacturer, MBDA, to compete commercially when international customers consider purchasing that aircraft. In recent times that support has not always been there. The decision to accept 50 Boeing AH64E Apache helicopters with the American Joint Air and Ground Missile (JAGM), instead of the UK's Brimstone (another MBDA product), has inserted a wedge between that British weapon and some of its potential customers. This wedge will adversely affect Brimstone's sales potential when future purchasers of the AH64E are looking for a similar missile to arm their land and sea forces. One wonders if the JAGM's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, is attempting to insert a similar wedge between MBDA's potential customers for Meteor? Possibly having been bitten once over Brimstone, Ben Wallace is reluctant to let that happen again with Meteor and, if it enhances the UK's ability to produce military equipment at scale, he is right to accept a temporary short fall in F35 numbers. His action (or inaction) sends the signal that if a foreign company wants the UK to buy its equipment, then it must invest in this country, and in the way we stipulate. Only then, with a capable defence industry which can produce at scale and reduce unit cost, may we be able to overcome some of our general resource problems.
In the period of reduced RN/RAF F35 numbers however, as the title indicates, Thank Goodness the Yanks are Here. In this case, with ten US Marine Corp F35Bs, which now make up almost two thirds of the QE's fixed wing air group.
Fred Dupuy
Non Exec Director of DefenceUK.
30th November 2021
No Power - No Problem!
The withholding of energy supplies by one country from another has occasionally been used as a weapon of persuasion and is invariably seen, by the afflicted nation, as an aggressive act. The withholding of oil supplies from Japan by the United States, Britain and the exiled Dutch government in 1941, is recognised as the final stroke that led to the attack on US, British and Dutch interests by the Japanese at the end of that year. We have seen in the ongoing friction between Russia and the Ukraine, the withholding of gas supplies by the former from the latter, and there are concerns about the security of similar supplies to Western Europe. Such a weapon being used between nations in serious conflict is therefore a surprise to no one but when it is used between allies, nations who's trading infrastructure and security interests are extensively interlocked, it raises questions about the depth and reliability of that very alliance. The threat by certain members of the French government to cut power supplies to the British Dependent Territories of the Channel Islands and possibly beyond that, via the cross channel inter-connector to the UK herself, will therefore be seen by many on the Northern side of the English Channel as a threat which one would normally expect from a potential enemy, and the problem of energy security, which has recently been emphasised by the recent increase in world gas prices, can only be further raised by this French threat. While no one would suggest that such a move will bring the two nations to the brink of war, British eyebrows will certainly be raised and questions asked about the reliability of France as a trading partner and friend.
The article, 'Civil Resilience - the daughter of Civil Defence', published in Pro Patria 3, raised the question of contingency planning to handle various forms of disruption. Widespread electricity failure is one that will affect the whole population of an area affected; in some cases, catastrophically! Fortunately for the Channel Islanders, their government has had the foresight to ensure that contingency exists to cater for a failure of the electricity supply from France, as it did because of technical problems in 2012. The La Collette power station, at St. Helier Port in Jersey, has been maintained in a working condition at 20 minutes readiness. If French officials think therefore that they will plunge the populace of the Channel Islands into darkness they had better think again. La Collette's three gas turbines, four large and one smaller (emergency start) diesels can produce 125 Megawatts (MW), which provides only half of the supply possible through the French link, but it is sufficient to satisfy the normal demand of both Jersey and Guernsey, between which there is a linking cable.
With the risk of electricity shortages identified, contingency plans should be pursued to increase the supply beyond that provided from La Collette. This can be done in several ways. The obvious one is of course to ship in several large portable diesel generators and couple them up through the La Collette switchboards. Another, and one which at a stroke, would increase the supply by almost 50%, is to charter a large Dynamically Positioned (DP) semi-submersible deep water drilling rig, or a DP drill ship, from the offshore oil and gas industry, moor it close to St. Helier Port and run a short cable to La Collette. These vessels, which are invariably diesel electric powered, typically produce in excess of 50 MW, virtually all of which is unused when they are sat at anchor and not engaged in drilling operations. Additionally, their power is fed through robust automated power management systems which copes rapidly with peaks and troughs in demand by bringing generators on-line and taking them off again as required. With exploration drilling in the offshore oil and gas industry presently going through a lull, the UK and Channel Island governments are likely to find rig owners who are hungry for a customer.
Energy independence and security is a state of affairs that should be pursued by the UK government and the Channel Islands must potentially be a prime site for one of the developing Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactors (SMR). With the recent establishment of the North Sea electricity cable between Britain and Norway, the French may find that if they carry through with their threat to cut the Channel Island's electricity supply, they may see the last Watt they will ever sell to the UK.
Fred Dupuy
Non Executive Director of Defence UK.
1st November 2021
The article, 'Civil Resilience - the daughter of Civil Defence', published in Pro Patria 3, raised the question of contingency planning to handle various forms of disruption. Widespread electricity failure is one that will affect the whole population of an area affected; in some cases, catastrophically! Fortunately for the Channel Islanders, their government has had the foresight to ensure that contingency exists to cater for a failure of the electricity supply from France, as it did because of technical problems in 2012. The La Collette power station, at St. Helier Port in Jersey, has been maintained in a working condition at 20 minutes readiness. If French officials think therefore that they will plunge the populace of the Channel Islands into darkness they had better think again. La Collette's three gas turbines, four large and one smaller (emergency start) diesels can produce 125 Megawatts (MW), which provides only half of the supply possible through the French link, but it is sufficient to satisfy the normal demand of both Jersey and Guernsey, between which there is a linking cable.
With the risk of electricity shortages identified, contingency plans should be pursued to increase the supply beyond that provided from La Collette. This can be done in several ways. The obvious one is of course to ship in several large portable diesel generators and couple them up through the La Collette switchboards. Another, and one which at a stroke, would increase the supply by almost 50%, is to charter a large Dynamically Positioned (DP) semi-submersible deep water drilling rig, or a DP drill ship, from the offshore oil and gas industry, moor it close to St. Helier Port and run a short cable to La Collette. These vessels, which are invariably diesel electric powered, typically produce in excess of 50 MW, virtually all of which is unused when they are sat at anchor and not engaged in drilling operations. Additionally, their power is fed through robust automated power management systems which copes rapidly with peaks and troughs in demand by bringing generators on-line and taking them off again as required. With exploration drilling in the offshore oil and gas industry presently going through a lull, the UK and Channel Island governments are likely to find rig owners who are hungry for a customer.
Energy independence and security is a state of affairs that should be pursued by the UK government and the Channel Islands must potentially be a prime site for one of the developing Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactors (SMR). With the recent establishment of the North Sea electricity cable between Britain and Norway, the French may find that if they carry through with their threat to cut the Channel Island's electricity supply, they may see the last Watt they will ever sell to the UK.
Fred Dupuy
Non Executive Director of Defence UK.
1st November 2021
Armed Forces' pay
"Defence UK welcomes the Government's decision to halt the pay freeze for the Armed Forces but we urge the Chancellor not to raid the Defence budget in order to fund any pay increases. Whilst it is of course very good news that rates of pay will at last start to move up again for serving personnel of the Armed Forces, there is a risk that this could mean cuts in other areas of the Defence budget. In particular we are concerned about implications for the already-underfunded Defence equipment budget and for manpower levels across the three Armed Services which are already too low.
"The last spending review provided a very welcome boost to Defence but there are still gaps and deficiencies, especially in manpower. Now, with growing threats to UK security from Russia, China and rogue states, and with our military playing an increasingly important role not just in the Defence of the Realm but in supporting the civil authorities, for instance during the covid-19 emergency, it is vital that funding for our Forces is not squeezed downwards again."
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
26th October 2021
"The last spending review provided a very welcome boost to Defence but there are still gaps and deficiencies, especially in manpower. Now, with growing threats to UK security from Russia, China and rogue states, and with our military playing an increasingly important role not just in the Defence of the Realm but in supporting the civil authorities, for instance during the covid-19 emergency, it is vital that funding for our Forces is not squeezed downwards again."
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
26th October 2021
All bark, no bite
From Land Warfare Magazine
Tim Fish's "All bark, no bite" is a worthy read for those looking for a view on the impact of the Integrated Review on the British Army and its future. Is it harsh but fair?
A Comparison: Norway and the UK. Why is Norway ‘stronger’ than us?
STEVE COLTMAN OCTOBER 2021
In the 2021 copy of Defence UK’s publication ‘ProPatria’ I wrote an article about Scotland’s defence, referencing Norway. The purpose of that article was to challenge the SNP into justifying their apparently laissez-faire attitude to defence by comparing it with the rather more robust approach of their near-neighbour Norway. This article puts the spotlight on Norway for quite a different reason. The ProPatria article emphasised that Norway has quite impressive armed forces for a country of its size, so I wondered how their armed forces, GDP and population compared with ours, pro-rata. The UK does not come out of this comparison very well, as we will see. The basics are:
Norway: Defence Spending: $7.514bn. Population (2020): 5.38m (2020) Percentage of GDP 2020: 1.9% Spending per capita: $1.397
UK: Defence Spending: $58.485bn, Population (2020): 67.22m. Percentage of GDP: 2%. Spending per capita: $870
So, the UK has a significantly smaller defence budget per capita than Norway, indicating that Norway’s GDP is much higher per capita than ours, something to be born in mind throughout this thought exercise. What this article will concentrate on, however, is value for money – how much ‘bang for the buck’ does each country get for its defence budget?
The UK’s defence budget is 7.8X bigger than that of Norway. It might be simplistic to say that our armed forces should therefore be 7.8X bigger than Norway’s but let’s run with that idea to start with:
The Norwegian Navy has four major surface combatants (it had five, but one was lost in an accident, although it had been paid for, so let’s call it 4.5). Pro rata the Royal Navy should have 35 major surface combatants. It actually has 12 frigates (one was recently decommissioned) and six destroyers, plus two aircraft carriers and five big amphibious warfare craft. I am including the three Bay class here although they are operated by the civilian Royal Fleet Auxiliary. 25 vessels, albeit two are big aircraft carriers.
The Norwegian Navy has six small submarines (with four replacements planned). 7.8X this latter number is 31 submarines. It’s hard to compare Norway’s smaller conventional submarines with the RN’s big nuclear boats but 7 of the latter don’t compare well with 31 of the former. (I am not including our four SSBNs here, the nuclear deterrent is another issue, and the new Norwegian subs are not that small either, at 3,000 tonnes submerged).
The Norwegian Navy also has four mine counter-measures vessels; the RN has eleven (not thirty-one!). Norway has six fast attack craft (they call them corvettes). The RN has no coastal combatants at all. The RN has eight patrol craft against Norway’s fifteen coastguard vessels, and seven big replenishment ships against Norway’s one. One can confidently assert that, SSNs and aircraft carriers not withstanding, the Royal Navy is definitely not 7.8X bigger and more powerful that that of Norway, even if we are not exactly comparing like with like.
The Norwegian Army has one heavy mechanised brigade and two battalion-sized combat units plus a 40,000-strong conscripted militia: “Brigade North will be developed with four manoeuvre battalions and with tactical and logistical support. The manoeuvre battalions will be equipped with new main battle tanks, mobile air defence systems and long-range precisions fire.” (The defence of Norway - Capability and readiness LONG TERM DEFENCE PLAN 2020)
Brigade North currently has a single battalion with 36 tanks but these will be replaced with brand new tanks, either the Korean K2 or the German Leopard 2A7. It will not be upgrading its existing tanks as the UK is doing. Brigade North will also have 24 K9 self-propelled howitzers from S Korea.
The arithmetic is simple enough:
7.8 x 36 is 280 tanks but the British Army has no-where near that number. The plan is to reduce the British tank fleet to about 120, two tank battalions in two armoured infantry brigades.
7.8 x 24 self-propelled guns is 187 but the British Army has no-where near that number either. It has just two artillery battalions, one for each armoured infantry brigade with, currently, 18 AS-90 self-propelled guns each. The army will have spare guns as well, of course, but 7.8 x 24 is still 187!
The British Army is also due to have two (?) Strike Brigades, equipped with the modern Boxer and Ajax armoured vehicles but not with tanks and only with towed light guns according to a recent news article. Pro-rata the Norwegian Army is far stronger than the British Army, even when you factor in the British Army’s lighter infantry units and the Navy’s Commandos. The Norwegian militia is not, qualitatively, the same sort of thing as Britain’s Army Reserve but the difference in numbers is still remarkable. Pro-rata to population the Norwegian Home Guard is the equivalent of half a million soldiers. Britain’s reserve forces number little more than 10% of that number.
Air Forces: It does not get much better when you compare air forces I’m afraid. Again quoting the Norwegian Defence Ministry’s own document their Air Force will be:
The first of these is NASAMS II, “The National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) is a medium-range, network-centric air defence system designed and developed jointly by Raytheon and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, primarily for the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF). The primary weapon of the system is AIM-120 AMRAAM.” (source: airforce-technology). The document does not say how many launchers Norway has but a single battery consists of three six-round launchers and a battalion consists of three batteries. The UK equivalent of this is the ground-launched version of CAMM, but the RAF has, at present, no surface-to-air missiles at all and only one battery seems to be on order, for the Army, to defend the Falklands. It’s not as if we had no targets worth defending however (Lossiemouth, Faslane, Coningsby, Marham, Devonport, Portsmouth, GCHQ, I could go on, and on…..)
52 F-35A fighters, multiplied by 7.8 is over 400! The RAF has 160 Typhoons of which the 53 Tranche 1s are considered surplus to requirements and scheduled for disposal in 2025. The RAF and the RN have 48 F-35Bs on order but up to 138 may possibly be ordered, or maybe not. The final total is not yet known but I think we can all agree the RAF won’t be flying 400+ fast jets any time soon.
(The Tranche 1 Typhoons came into service in 2003 so most will be less than 20 years old when disposed of. “The UK's recently revealed plan to prematurely retire its Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft will see the fleet axed with more than half of its airframe fatigue life remaining.” Source – Janes.) There was recently a magazine article featuring a ‘brand-new” Japanese F-15 Eagle fighter outside the Mitsubishi plant. Except it was not brand new. Some of the systems inside it were, like the radar, but the airframe was 40 years old. Are the Japanese mad or is the RAF mad?
Norway will have five P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol planes, the RAF is receiving nine, not 39.
Electronic warfare, OK, I think we will have to concede the RAF is probably superior here, absolutely and relatively.
4 x C-130J Super-Hercules: the RAF is (again prematurely) disposing of its entire C-130J fleet and gaining 22 A-400M’s. It’s about evens here, 22 A-400Ms is a similar capability to 31 C-130Js. The RAF also has C-17 heavy lifters and MRTT tankers but Norway has access to similar shared assets as well.
14 NH90 Maritime Helicopters. Once again, applying the 7.8x multiplier we would have a fleet of 109 machines. The UK has nowhere near that number. In Britain’s case, maritime helicopters are operated by the Navy, not the RAF. The RN has 28 of the smaller Wildcat and originally had 44 of the larger Merlins but now only operates 30 of them.
Tactical Transport helicopters: The Navy has 22 Merlin HC2 and the RAF have about 60 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters and 24 Puma medium helicopters, giving a total of 106 machines. Pro-rata Norway would have to purchase about 14 machines to match these numbers, so we can be satisfied that so far as transport helicopters are concerned, we need not be embarrassed about the size of our current fleet.
SAR Helicopters: 16 Norwegian Merlins are equivalent to, pro-rata, 125 machines for the UK. We have no-where near this number (nor, probably, any need for that number). In the UK SAR has in any case been outsourced to civilian companies. You might have thought the armed services needed some kind of combat search and rescue capability though.
Why?
This is the end of the painful comparisons. It is clear to anybody that, although the UK has a bigger defence budget than Norway, we don’t have bigger conventional armed forces pro-rata. No-where near in fact. So what is the explanation? I can only offer suggestions; others may have other ideas as well:
1. The UK has a nuclear deterrent of course. It has been argued that the cost of this deterrent over its entire lifetime is not a big percentage of the total defence budget but right now it is costing £30-40bn just to build four submarines let alone all the other costs. This must he hurting the conventional forces.
2. Norway has conscription, especially into the Army that is about 50% conscripts. These are inexpensive compared with professionals and contract soldiers.
3. The UK, especially the RAF, has a distressing tendency to buy expensive kit only to throw it away. I have referred above to the waste of the Typhoon tranche 1 fleet, and the C-130Js. Don’t get me started on the “over a hundred….sent for disassembly” Tornado F-3s (actually more like 130, scrapped, when just over 20 years old). The MoD/RAF/Treasury have behaved in a manner that no other country would. You can search high and low for an example of another country behaving like this, and the search would be in vain. The RN and the Army are not above criticism in this respect either.
4. 2010 Defence cuts. It has been claimed that a 10% cut in the budget resulted in a 25% cut in front-line combat capability. I think this is an example of a larger problem. To spend money efficiently it is necessary to make realistic plans then stick to them. Chopping and changing defence plans simply squanders money. A defence cut saves money not yet spent by wasting money already spent.
5. Operational costs: The UK has been heavily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the operational costs are supposed to have been paid for separately it is not impossible to imagine that these operations might have adversely affected the armed forces. However, this author does not have a complete explanation for why we spend so much on defence but have so little to show for it.
Norway: Defence Spending: $7.514bn. Population (2020): 5.38m (2020) Percentage of GDP 2020: 1.9% Spending per capita: $1.397
UK: Defence Spending: $58.485bn, Population (2020): 67.22m. Percentage of GDP: 2%. Spending per capita: $870
So, the UK has a significantly smaller defence budget per capita than Norway, indicating that Norway’s GDP is much higher per capita than ours, something to be born in mind throughout this thought exercise. What this article will concentrate on, however, is value for money – how much ‘bang for the buck’ does each country get for its defence budget?
The UK’s defence budget is 7.8X bigger than that of Norway. It might be simplistic to say that our armed forces should therefore be 7.8X bigger than Norway’s but let’s run with that idea to start with:
The Norwegian Navy has four major surface combatants (it had five, but one was lost in an accident, although it had been paid for, so let’s call it 4.5). Pro rata the Royal Navy should have 35 major surface combatants. It actually has 12 frigates (one was recently decommissioned) and six destroyers, plus two aircraft carriers and five big amphibious warfare craft. I am including the three Bay class here although they are operated by the civilian Royal Fleet Auxiliary. 25 vessels, albeit two are big aircraft carriers.
The Norwegian Navy has six small submarines (with four replacements planned). 7.8X this latter number is 31 submarines. It’s hard to compare Norway’s smaller conventional submarines with the RN’s big nuclear boats but 7 of the latter don’t compare well with 31 of the former. (I am not including our four SSBNs here, the nuclear deterrent is another issue, and the new Norwegian subs are not that small either, at 3,000 tonnes submerged).
The Norwegian Navy also has four mine counter-measures vessels; the RN has eleven (not thirty-one!). Norway has six fast attack craft (they call them corvettes). The RN has no coastal combatants at all. The RN has eight patrol craft against Norway’s fifteen coastguard vessels, and seven big replenishment ships against Norway’s one. One can confidently assert that, SSNs and aircraft carriers not withstanding, the Royal Navy is definitely not 7.8X bigger and more powerful that that of Norway, even if we are not exactly comparing like with like.
The Norwegian Army has one heavy mechanised brigade and two battalion-sized combat units plus a 40,000-strong conscripted militia: “Brigade North will be developed with four manoeuvre battalions and with tactical and logistical support. The manoeuvre battalions will be equipped with new main battle tanks, mobile air defence systems and long-range precisions fire.” (The defence of Norway - Capability and readiness LONG TERM DEFENCE PLAN 2020)
Brigade North currently has a single battalion with 36 tanks but these will be replaced with brand new tanks, either the Korean K2 or the German Leopard 2A7. It will not be upgrading its existing tanks as the UK is doing. Brigade North will also have 24 K9 self-propelled howitzers from S Korea.
The arithmetic is simple enough:
7.8 x 36 is 280 tanks but the British Army has no-where near that number. The plan is to reduce the British tank fleet to about 120, two tank battalions in two armoured infantry brigades.
7.8 x 24 self-propelled guns is 187 but the British Army has no-where near that number either. It has just two artillery battalions, one for each armoured infantry brigade with, currently, 18 AS-90 self-propelled guns each. The army will have spare guns as well, of course, but 7.8 x 24 is still 187!
The British Army is also due to have two (?) Strike Brigades, equipped with the modern Boxer and Ajax armoured vehicles but not with tanks and only with towed light guns according to a recent news article. Pro-rata the Norwegian Army is far stronger than the British Army, even when you factor in the British Army’s lighter infantry units and the Navy’s Commandos. The Norwegian militia is not, qualitatively, the same sort of thing as Britain’s Army Reserve but the difference in numbers is still remarkable. Pro-rata to population the Norwegian Home Guard is the equivalent of half a million soldiers. Britain’s reserve forces number little more than 10% of that number.
Air Forces: It does not get much better when you compare air forces I’m afraid. Again quoting the Norwegian Defence Ministry’s own document their Air Force will be:
- Ground Based Air Defence and Force Protection
- F16 will be replaced by 52 F35 Fighter Aircraft
- P-3 Orion will be replaced by five P8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft
- Two Electronic Warfare Aircraft, will be phased out
- Four C130J Tactical Transport Aircraft
- 14 NH90 Maritime Helicopters
- 18 Bell 412 will be replaced by new Tactical Transport Helicopters (but they don’t say how many)
- Sea King will be replaced by 16 AW101 Search and Rescue Helicopters
The first of these is NASAMS II, “The National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) is a medium-range, network-centric air defence system designed and developed jointly by Raytheon and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, primarily for the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF). The primary weapon of the system is AIM-120 AMRAAM.” (source: airforce-technology). The document does not say how many launchers Norway has but a single battery consists of three six-round launchers and a battalion consists of three batteries. The UK equivalent of this is the ground-launched version of CAMM, but the RAF has, at present, no surface-to-air missiles at all and only one battery seems to be on order, for the Army, to defend the Falklands. It’s not as if we had no targets worth defending however (Lossiemouth, Faslane, Coningsby, Marham, Devonport, Portsmouth, GCHQ, I could go on, and on…..)
52 F-35A fighters, multiplied by 7.8 is over 400! The RAF has 160 Typhoons of which the 53 Tranche 1s are considered surplus to requirements and scheduled for disposal in 2025. The RAF and the RN have 48 F-35Bs on order but up to 138 may possibly be ordered, or maybe not. The final total is not yet known but I think we can all agree the RAF won’t be flying 400+ fast jets any time soon.
(The Tranche 1 Typhoons came into service in 2003 so most will be less than 20 years old when disposed of. “The UK's recently revealed plan to prematurely retire its Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft will see the fleet axed with more than half of its airframe fatigue life remaining.” Source – Janes.) There was recently a magazine article featuring a ‘brand-new” Japanese F-15 Eagle fighter outside the Mitsubishi plant. Except it was not brand new. Some of the systems inside it were, like the radar, but the airframe was 40 years old. Are the Japanese mad or is the RAF mad?
Norway will have five P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol planes, the RAF is receiving nine, not 39.
Electronic warfare, OK, I think we will have to concede the RAF is probably superior here, absolutely and relatively.
4 x C-130J Super-Hercules: the RAF is (again prematurely) disposing of its entire C-130J fleet and gaining 22 A-400M’s. It’s about evens here, 22 A-400Ms is a similar capability to 31 C-130Js. The RAF also has C-17 heavy lifters and MRTT tankers but Norway has access to similar shared assets as well.
14 NH90 Maritime Helicopters. Once again, applying the 7.8x multiplier we would have a fleet of 109 machines. The UK has nowhere near that number. In Britain’s case, maritime helicopters are operated by the Navy, not the RAF. The RN has 28 of the smaller Wildcat and originally had 44 of the larger Merlins but now only operates 30 of them.
Tactical Transport helicopters: The Navy has 22 Merlin HC2 and the RAF have about 60 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters and 24 Puma medium helicopters, giving a total of 106 machines. Pro-rata Norway would have to purchase about 14 machines to match these numbers, so we can be satisfied that so far as transport helicopters are concerned, we need not be embarrassed about the size of our current fleet.
SAR Helicopters: 16 Norwegian Merlins are equivalent to, pro-rata, 125 machines for the UK. We have no-where near this number (nor, probably, any need for that number). In the UK SAR has in any case been outsourced to civilian companies. You might have thought the armed services needed some kind of combat search and rescue capability though.
Why?
This is the end of the painful comparisons. It is clear to anybody that, although the UK has a bigger defence budget than Norway, we don’t have bigger conventional armed forces pro-rata. No-where near in fact. So what is the explanation? I can only offer suggestions; others may have other ideas as well:
1. The UK has a nuclear deterrent of course. It has been argued that the cost of this deterrent over its entire lifetime is not a big percentage of the total defence budget but right now it is costing £30-40bn just to build four submarines let alone all the other costs. This must he hurting the conventional forces.
2. Norway has conscription, especially into the Army that is about 50% conscripts. These are inexpensive compared with professionals and contract soldiers.
3. The UK, especially the RAF, has a distressing tendency to buy expensive kit only to throw it away. I have referred above to the waste of the Typhoon tranche 1 fleet, and the C-130Js. Don’t get me started on the “over a hundred….sent for disassembly” Tornado F-3s (actually more like 130, scrapped, when just over 20 years old). The MoD/RAF/Treasury have behaved in a manner that no other country would. You can search high and low for an example of another country behaving like this, and the search would be in vain. The RN and the Army are not above criticism in this respect either.
4. 2010 Defence cuts. It has been claimed that a 10% cut in the budget resulted in a 25% cut in front-line combat capability. I think this is an example of a larger problem. To spend money efficiently it is necessary to make realistic plans then stick to them. Chopping and changing defence plans simply squanders money. A defence cut saves money not yet spent by wasting money already spent.
5. Operational costs: The UK has been heavily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the operational costs are supposed to have been paid for separately it is not impossible to imagine that these operations might have adversely affected the armed forces. However, this author does not have a complete explanation for why we spend so much on defence but have so little to show for it.
Australia/usa/uk pact
"It has just been announced that Australia, the USA and the UK have formed a pact that will, among other things, involve Australia building nuclear-powered submarines for the first time. At the time of writing (16th Sept 2021) there is a dearth of detail so assessing the significance is difficult.
To take a step back first, one has to wonder why the UK is committed, by treaty, to come to the aid of other NATO countries while we are not obliged to come to the aid of Australia. After all, some of the NATO countries were our Warsaw Pact enemies and are countries with which we have few, if any, historical links. Australia by contrast is not just a friend or ally. Australia is, literally, family. So, committing the UK to the defence of Australia would be a right and natural thing to do, if that is what the pact actually means.
As for the details, they are currently lacking. Australia’s original plan was to build under licence twelve “Short-fin Barracuda” class submarines of French design. The Barracuda class will enter French Navy service powered by French nuclear reactors but these “Short-fin Barracudas” were to have the nuclear propulsion replaced by a mixture of conventional diesel-electric propulsion plus air-independent propulsion. They would have been the biggest, most expensive and advanced conventional submarines in the world and a significant advance on the six Collins class boats in service at present. It has been reported that these French-designed submarines would have been fitted with much of the sensors and weapons currently employed on the US Virginia class boats.
So what don’t we know? Will Australia still be buying twelve boats? And what sort - the UK Astute class or the US Virginia class? How will a country with relatively little nuclear expertise like Australia cope with a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines? It would presumably make Australia dependent upon the US (and the UK?) to a degree the Short-fin Barracudas would not. What about timing? There have already been concerns expressed about timing. One would want the new boats, whatever they are, to come into service as the Collins class are retired otherwise there will be a short-to-medium term dip in Australian submarine numbers before numbers rise longer-term. If there is conflict with China in the short-to-medium term these new boats might not be available in time to make a difference.
On a more parochial level, the Royal Navy has already lost key personnel to the Royal Australian Navy, including to their submarine service. This announcement opens up the possibility of RN nuclear engineers leaving Faslane for sunnier climes and thus creating an issue for the RN.
Until we have some details of the new arrangement we will all have to suspend judgement. The contract with France to build the twelve Short-fin Barracudas, fitted with advanced US weapons and sensors, looked like an exciting and significant leap forward in numbers and quality for the RAN submarine service. Let us hope the new arrangement is at least as good, but until we have some detail, no-one can tell.
Steve Coltman, 16th Sept 2021
To take a step back first, one has to wonder why the UK is committed, by treaty, to come to the aid of other NATO countries while we are not obliged to come to the aid of Australia. After all, some of the NATO countries were our Warsaw Pact enemies and are countries with which we have few, if any, historical links. Australia by contrast is not just a friend or ally. Australia is, literally, family. So, committing the UK to the defence of Australia would be a right and natural thing to do, if that is what the pact actually means.
As for the details, they are currently lacking. Australia’s original plan was to build under licence twelve “Short-fin Barracuda” class submarines of French design. The Barracuda class will enter French Navy service powered by French nuclear reactors but these “Short-fin Barracudas” were to have the nuclear propulsion replaced by a mixture of conventional diesel-electric propulsion plus air-independent propulsion. They would have been the biggest, most expensive and advanced conventional submarines in the world and a significant advance on the six Collins class boats in service at present. It has been reported that these French-designed submarines would have been fitted with much of the sensors and weapons currently employed on the US Virginia class boats.
So what don’t we know? Will Australia still be buying twelve boats? And what sort - the UK Astute class or the US Virginia class? How will a country with relatively little nuclear expertise like Australia cope with a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines? It would presumably make Australia dependent upon the US (and the UK?) to a degree the Short-fin Barracudas would not. What about timing? There have already been concerns expressed about timing. One would want the new boats, whatever they are, to come into service as the Collins class are retired otherwise there will be a short-to-medium term dip in Australian submarine numbers before numbers rise longer-term. If there is conflict with China in the short-to-medium term these new boats might not be available in time to make a difference.
On a more parochial level, the Royal Navy has already lost key personnel to the Royal Australian Navy, including to their submarine service. This announcement opens up the possibility of RN nuclear engineers leaving Faslane for sunnier climes and thus creating an issue for the RN.
Until we have some details of the new arrangement we will all have to suspend judgement. The contract with France to build the twelve Short-fin Barracudas, fitted with advanced US weapons and sensors, looked like an exciting and significant leap forward in numbers and quality for the RAN submarine service. Let us hope the new arrangement is at least as good, but until we have some detail, no-one can tell.
Steve Coltman, 16th Sept 2021
New statement on afghanistan
With the news tonight (15 Aug) that Kabul has fallen and the Taliban now controls almost all of Afghanistan, after their forces swept aside the Afghan National Army and seized all of the country's major cities and provinces in a matter of days, the full scale of this disaster is laid bare. The fall of Afghanistan, once again, to radical Islamists, represents a massive failure by the USA and the whole of NATO.
"Britain's defence, security and foreign policies must be reviewed urgently in light of the Taliban's sweeping victory. There are some key questions for our political leaders to address, not least over the future direction of NATO, and whether or not we can continue to place such faith in Britain's relationship with the United States of America. There is no escaping the fact that the US President, by his rush to pull American troops out of Afghanistan, is directly responsible for the catastrophe that has unfolded in that unhappy country in recent days.
Andrew Smith
Director, Defence UK
15th August 2021
"Britain's defence, security and foreign policies must be reviewed urgently in light of the Taliban's sweeping victory. There are some key questions for our political leaders to address, not least over the future direction of NATO, and whether or not we can continue to place such faith in Britain's relationship with the United States of America. There is no escaping the fact that the US President, by his rush to pull American troops out of Afghanistan, is directly responsible for the catastrophe that has unfolded in that unhappy country in recent days.
Andrew Smith
Director, Defence UK
15th August 2021
Afghanistan
"Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is right to call the American decision to withdraw from Afghanistan 'a mistake', but he and the Prime Minister surely cannot leave it at that. This is Britain's opportunity to show leadership of the Western Alliance by instigating urgent military action, including air strikes against Taliban forces, to relieve pressure on the Afghan government, save Kabul from falling into Islamist hands, and prevent the country being turned once again into a safe haven for Islamist terrorists. If this requires another substantial British military commitment to Afghanistan, then so be it. It would clearly be the right thing to do, from a moral and humanitarian point of view, but it is also essential to British and Western security. President Biden has let down the Western World; Boris Johnson should not do the same.
"For America and NATO to be pulling out of Afghanistan on the eve of the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and effectively handing over the country to terrorists is utterly shameful. It is a chronic failure of Western resolve at a critical time and not only will terrorists be celebrating this appalling situation but so will Russia and China. If we abandon Afghanistan, it will be a gift to all the West's enemies, not just the Islamists."
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
PO Box 819 Portsmouth PO1 9FF
Twitter @DefenceAssoc
Website www.defenceuk.org
13th August 2021
"For America and NATO to be pulling out of Afghanistan on the eve of the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and effectively handing over the country to terrorists is utterly shameful. It is a chronic failure of Western resolve at a critical time and not only will terrorists be celebrating this appalling situation but so will Russia and China. If we abandon Afghanistan, it will be a gift to all the West's enemies, not just the Islamists."
Andrew Smith, Director, Defence UK
PO Box 819 Portsmouth PO1 9FF
Twitter @DefenceAssoc
Website www.defenceuk.org
13th August 2021
HMS Ocean
The Government have made a catastrophic decision by axing HMS Ocean, the helicopter-carrier and assault ship of the Royal Marines. By doing so, this completely undermines the integrity of the Royal Marines, an elite fighting force, and hugely reduces their amphibious capability, because as well as helicopters for fast, low-level insertion of marines and troops onto land or onto a coastline, Ocean also carries landing-craft. In addition to this, Ocean was only commissioned in 1999 and is a young warship with another 15/16 years of life left in her.
When Theresa May first became Prime Minister, she came on deck of HMS Ocean and in her speech, was ‘waxing lyrical’ about the pride and professionalism of our Armed Forces; indeed, in her New Year message she actually mentioned the help and humanitarian aid that our Forces gave to certain Caribbean islands, such as the British Virgin Islands in the wake of hurricane Irma; Ocean was precisely involved in this. Yet it is this sort of hypocrisy that annoys, and angers serving Armed Forces personnel and makes them so disillusioned with politicians.
The N.A.T.O. demand to spend 2% of GDP on defence is not a target; it is the absolute, absolute minimum that we should be spending on defence, and the Government are not even spending that. They are selling off vital defence assets and using the money received to cobble together enough money to make the defence budget appear just about respectable! We should be spending 4.5% of GDP on defence and that figure can be achieved over a period of Years. The Government must cancel the sale of HMS Ocean to Brazil for a mere £80 million and stump up the money to give her the maintenance and refit she deserves. The public should be annoyed, because if warships are only to be allowed to serve for half their life in the Royal Navy, their initial build cost has now effectively been ‘doubled’!
James Bruce
When Theresa May first became Prime Minister, she came on deck of HMS Ocean and in her speech, was ‘waxing lyrical’ about the pride and professionalism of our Armed Forces; indeed, in her New Year message she actually mentioned the help and humanitarian aid that our Forces gave to certain Caribbean islands, such as the British Virgin Islands in the wake of hurricane Irma; Ocean was precisely involved in this. Yet it is this sort of hypocrisy that annoys, and angers serving Armed Forces personnel and makes them so disillusioned with politicians.
The N.A.T.O. demand to spend 2% of GDP on defence is not a target; it is the absolute, absolute minimum that we should be spending on defence, and the Government are not even spending that. They are selling off vital defence assets and using the money received to cobble together enough money to make the defence budget appear just about respectable! We should be spending 4.5% of GDP on defence and that figure can be achieved over a period of Years. The Government must cancel the sale of HMS Ocean to Brazil for a mere £80 million and stump up the money to give her the maintenance and refit she deserves. The public should be annoyed, because if warships are only to be allowed to serve for half their life in the Royal Navy, their initial build cost has now effectively been ‘doubled’!
James Bruce
commander John Muxworthy rn
It is with deep regret that we announce the death of our Founder and President, John Muxworthy.
In 2007 his vision of an effective Defence Pressure Group to campaign for strong and well resourced Armed Forces attracted considerable support from a wide range of people, including leading figures from the military and the worlds of politics, academia and the media. This led to the establishment of the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA). As Defence UK, we continue with this work based on the legacy he has left.
The funeral will take place at Buckfast Abbey on 11th August at 1400. Following the Service there will be a reception, also at the Abbey. It would be appreciated if those wishing to attend would email the Defence UK Secretary at [email protected].
In 2007 his vision of an effective Defence Pressure Group to campaign for strong and well resourced Armed Forces attracted considerable support from a wide range of people, including leading figures from the military and the worlds of politics, academia and the media. This led to the establishment of the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA). As Defence UK, we continue with this work based on the legacy he has left.
The funeral will take place at Buckfast Abbey on 11th August at 1400. Following the Service there will be a reception, also at the Abbey. It would be appreciated if those wishing to attend would email the Defence UK Secretary at [email protected].
The ‘National Flagship’ – a missed opportunity?
by Kevin Slade
The announcement of a new ‘National Flagship’ to be built in the United Kingdom, to promote trade and to represent Britain globally, is welcome news, but have we missed a great opportunity here? We do not yet have specific details of the new vessel but what is available illustrates an updated HMY Britannia, in reality a new Royal Yacht, built to entertain, and crewed by the Royal Navy. This has already atracted a storm of negative feedback, including disinterest (at best) and distancing from the Royal Family. There is a strong view that this is an outdated, expensive concept, linked to the past, and the lack of a clearly defined role for the ship underlines this view.
The purpose of this paper is to address the above and explore how to convert what could be considered an expensive white elephant into an exciting, innovative and practical showcase for the UK with environmental and advocacy credentials to parade before the participants of COP-26. A ship that would be the first in the world built with specific capabilities to combat the consequences of climate change. More importantly, it could be a focus for all the people of the UK to take pride in and to identify with. A real National Flagship would atract the necessary moral and financial support, both while building and in its operations. It would represent the future more than the past.
We need to add substance to the statement of the Prime Minster that:
‘This new national flagship will be the first vessel of its kind in the world, reflecting the UK's burgeoning status as a great, independent maritime trading nation. Every aspect of the ship, from its build to the businesses it showcases on board, will represent and promote the best of British – a clear and powerful symbol of our commitment to be an active player on the world stage.’
This can be achieved by integrating into the new ship the Britannia Maritime Aid concept of a multi role Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) vessel. A vessel that is also a much-needed training ship for UK mariners of every stripe. Furthermore, a vessel that has the ability to host trade fairs, conduct ocean advocacy, oceanographic research and to be a conspicuous global showcase for the UK.
British-built
The proposal to build the proposed flagship in the UK and to classify it as a warship, manned and operated by the Royal Navy, is also under scrutiny, given that the stated purpose of the ship is for business rather than security. It would therefore be difficult for the UK to avoid allowing international competition to tender for the build without breaching the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), where Item 47 of annex 4 of the UK schedule explicitly says the procurement of ‘ships, boats and floating structures, except warships, must be advertised internationally and awarded without discrimination.
Other countries, including the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia, have, by contrast, ensured that their GPA agreements exclude civil shipbuilding. Britain has not done so, which shows a marked lack of foresight. So in order to conduct the build in the UK, the new flagship must be defined as a ‘warship’, but this then requires the expense of a relatively large Royal Naval crew and the further additional costs inherent in warship operations and equipment.
Whilst the short-term objective of building in the UK may be achieved, the end result will be a vessel much more expensive to build and operate than a civilian ship, with the additional burden of being
unable to offset operational cost with income from external source. It must also be noted that under OECD rules a warship cannot receive funding from the Overseas Aid budget, a significant loss of potential capital and operational income.
The alternative is to tender and build the flagship as a commercial vessel. There are a number of post-Brexit UK Government initiatives that help to level a very uneven international playing field. One is the Green Book, and the other is Procurement Policy Note (PPN) 0620.
The Green Book is the government’s guidance on options appraisal and applies to all proposals that concern public spending, taxation, changes to regulations and changes to the use of existing public assets and resources. It supports the design and appraisal of proposals that both achieve government policy objectives and deliver social value.
Procurement Policy Note (PPN 0620) sets out how to take account of social value in the award of central government contracts by using the Social Value Model.
Both attempt to address key Government objectives whilst spending public money, including COVID-19 recovery, fighting climate change and so on. They are available to any British shipbuilder bidding for a UK Government-financed project (there is a requirement to award a minimum of 10% of marks for social content, for example), but there has been liIle understanding of how they can best be used.
It should be remembered that the RRS Sir David Attenborough, one of the most sophisticated vessels built in the UK, if not the world, was a British Government procurement which was tendered internationally and won competitively by a UK shipyard, namely Cammell Laird. Surely the new National Flagship can be tendered on the same basis, and thus do away with this subterfuge as a warship?
Commercial shipbuilding must be considered as a UK strategic asset. The breadth of activities involved, and the importance of the secondary industries that support shipbuilding, grant the UK a measure of capabilities that we have allowed to wither. We now have an opportunity to address this.
Design
It appears that the Flagship will be designed to carry passengers and have facilities to host receptions trade fairs and international conferences. This vessel will be of relatively small dimensions and limited capability beyond its primary role. It would be a one-off build with all the extra costs inherent in any unique design. However, there is an alternative by utilising a commercial ‘common platform’ design, such as proposed for the Britannia Maritime Aid (BMA) vessel, a far more practical, flexible and capable ship (or ships) will result.
A proven Ro-Ro Passenger Ferry Hull with all necessary accommodation and showcasing features ‘built in’, that will be more cost effective and of significantly greater volume and thereby greater capability. There is precedent: the multi-role HMNZS Canterbury was a design based on the commercial Isle of Man service RoPax Ben My Chree.
A cargo deck or decks can readily be configured as a large exhibition space, with the capability of rapidly and seamlessly being converted to stowing containers and vehicles for dealing with Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations. A self-supporting ship’s side and stern ramps will greatly facilitate the loading and unloading of vehicles, stores, equipment and containerised cargo, which will be an essential too if we are to demonstrate the best of British industry. The world is now containerised, with everything from field hospitals to prefabricated buildings, Medical Wards, clinics etc. designed to fit into standard 20-foot ISO containers. This cannot be ignored.
The UK shipbuilding industry cannot survive and flourish on one-offs. The new Flagship must in itself be an example of a cost-effective HADR ship type that can be built in Britain and be exportable to those many countries with extensive coastlines that are seeking multi-role ships of their own.
The BMA platform is exportable as a commercial RoPax vessel, thus opening up additional opportunities and kick starting a British shipbuilding export drive.
Humanitarian aid
‘We have to act. We have to act now to try and clear up some of the appalling damage we have made to the ocean ... and that is going to require positive action’ – Sir David Attenborough
The response from much of the media to the Government’s announcement of the ‘National Flagship’ has been far from enthusiastic with many questioning what the ship will be used for. A forecast cost of £200m, when the post-COVID spotlight is on fiscal responsibility, will attract hostile reviews. Conversely, a strong and significant Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) role for the new Flagship, when not engaged in Government representation or training mariners, will surely gain much support from the general public, as British aid delivered by British professionals in a British ship. The first time that this ship gets involved in any post-disaster operations it is likely to justify its existence in terms of money spent, lives saved, national pride and the enhanced standing of the UK amongst the international community.
We also have the opportunity to build a global maritime showcase on climate change with the potential for yet more favourable international publicity. By addressing the causes and consequences, demonstrating current initiatives, both education and action, the vessel can focus on climate change and ocean advocacy, which must be one of this ship’s tasks.
The list of current maritime environmental concerns covers coastal erosion, invasive species, plastics litter and of course, pollution We have the chance of demonstrating how a floating mobile platform can help to address these concerns, both from a research and a practical perspective.
For example, the UK has developed world-leading waste management systems using pyrolysis (plastic garbage in – clean energy out)– portable systems that can be transported in standard ISO containers and set up in any isolated or Island community. One such system is fitted to each of our new aircraft carriers and surely must be integrated into the new Flagship? There are also cost savings in delivering AID projects directly to Site instead of through funding third parties – where the end result is so often diluted by bureaucracy and graft.
UK Ship Registry
The recent COVID-19 crisis demonstrated the shallowness and lack of national identity in registering vessels purely where they pay the least tax, resulting in a lack of ‘ownership’ that led to many large cruise companies tied to a ship registry with little means of supporting the industry and crewmembers. The agreement for a Global Minimum Tax may adversely affect shipping companies who register their ships with Flag of Convenience (FOC) ship registries and by default create an opportunity to market the UK Flag as a robust ship registry of substance. To register this Flagship in the UK and fly the Red Ensign would be a demonstra0on of Government support for the British maritime industry. Not to do so would surely be irresponsible, a National Flagship with no Port of Registry?
Crewing
If the National Flagship has a full Royal Navy crew, it wastes the opportunity to showcase the world- class professionalism of our British Merchant Navy seafarers serving onboard some of the most sophisticated vessels, such as 6-star cruise ships, ‘super-yachts’ and the world-class Sir David Attenborough. Naval crews are needed in real warships; the current recruiting gaps cannot allow for additional personnel crewing a National Flagship. By all means carry a Royal Navy and a Royal Marine detachment, but we should not exclude our British Merchant Navy professionals from playing their part in proudly flying the flag.
Training and educaton
British maritime training leads the world and produces the most skilled seafarers and maritime professionals. The UK cer0ficate of competence is ‘Gold Standard’ and accepted without hesitation as such. The global maritime industry is headquartered in the UK – (IMO, ICS IACS, INTERTANKO, ITF etc) – and as such needs a constant supply of experienced seafarers, if the UK cannot supply then this expertise will simply be imported. Yet there is no mention of the New Flagship promoting British maritime training or the British maritime professionals. Our maritime colleges and universities are world-class and a significant number of their students are foreign nationals.
This makes it imperative that any UK National Flagship promotes British maritime training by assuming a training function as an example to others, especially the UK seafarers of tomorrow. Alongside this and trade activity the Flagship can also have a role in hosting international and regional training conferences, seminars and activities e.g. organising and teaching the value of local beach and ocean clean ups, both fiscal and educational. If, as has been suggested, the vessel is to be named in memory of the late Duke of Edinburgh, then what better way of paying tribute to the late Prince Philip than to continue internatonal delivery of the causes he believed in so passionately? This can be done by actively supporting Royal Charities with the Flagship and by carrying young people engaged in various youth initiatives, especially those linked to the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme, helping those in need and providing hundreds of young people with an unforgettable experience. This would be a practical and fitting tribute.
Conclusion
We need innovative action to counter what appears to be outdated thinking, resurrecting a model from the 1960s (in effect a ‘non-combat warship’). The opportunity is to build a National Flagship, crewed by British and perhaps Commonwealth seafarers and trainees (cadets and ratings of all disciplines, a platform for maritime training and education, directly delivering UK-funded disaster relief, aid, vaccinations, and community rebuilding projects, and equipped to carry out innovative ocean advocacy, environmental and research projects. Indeed, to quote our Prime Minister, ‘every aspect of the ship, from its build to the businesses it showcases on board, will represent and promote the best of British.’ Let us not miss this opportunity.
The purpose of this paper is to address the above and explore how to convert what could be considered an expensive white elephant into an exciting, innovative and practical showcase for the UK with environmental and advocacy credentials to parade before the participants of COP-26. A ship that would be the first in the world built with specific capabilities to combat the consequences of climate change. More importantly, it could be a focus for all the people of the UK to take pride in and to identify with. A real National Flagship would atract the necessary moral and financial support, both while building and in its operations. It would represent the future more than the past.
We need to add substance to the statement of the Prime Minster that:
‘This new national flagship will be the first vessel of its kind in the world, reflecting the UK's burgeoning status as a great, independent maritime trading nation. Every aspect of the ship, from its build to the businesses it showcases on board, will represent and promote the best of British – a clear and powerful symbol of our commitment to be an active player on the world stage.’
This can be achieved by integrating into the new ship the Britannia Maritime Aid concept of a multi role Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) vessel. A vessel that is also a much-needed training ship for UK mariners of every stripe. Furthermore, a vessel that has the ability to host trade fairs, conduct ocean advocacy, oceanographic research and to be a conspicuous global showcase for the UK.
British-built
The proposal to build the proposed flagship in the UK and to classify it as a warship, manned and operated by the Royal Navy, is also under scrutiny, given that the stated purpose of the ship is for business rather than security. It would therefore be difficult for the UK to avoid allowing international competition to tender for the build without breaching the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), where Item 47 of annex 4 of the UK schedule explicitly says the procurement of ‘ships, boats and floating structures, except warships, must be advertised internationally and awarded without discrimination.
Other countries, including the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia, have, by contrast, ensured that their GPA agreements exclude civil shipbuilding. Britain has not done so, which shows a marked lack of foresight. So in order to conduct the build in the UK, the new flagship must be defined as a ‘warship’, but this then requires the expense of a relatively large Royal Naval crew and the further additional costs inherent in warship operations and equipment.
Whilst the short-term objective of building in the UK may be achieved, the end result will be a vessel much more expensive to build and operate than a civilian ship, with the additional burden of being
unable to offset operational cost with income from external source. It must also be noted that under OECD rules a warship cannot receive funding from the Overseas Aid budget, a significant loss of potential capital and operational income.
The alternative is to tender and build the flagship as a commercial vessel. There are a number of post-Brexit UK Government initiatives that help to level a very uneven international playing field. One is the Green Book, and the other is Procurement Policy Note (PPN) 0620.
The Green Book is the government’s guidance on options appraisal and applies to all proposals that concern public spending, taxation, changes to regulations and changes to the use of existing public assets and resources. It supports the design and appraisal of proposals that both achieve government policy objectives and deliver social value.
Procurement Policy Note (PPN 0620) sets out how to take account of social value in the award of central government contracts by using the Social Value Model.
Both attempt to address key Government objectives whilst spending public money, including COVID-19 recovery, fighting climate change and so on. They are available to any British shipbuilder bidding for a UK Government-financed project (there is a requirement to award a minimum of 10% of marks for social content, for example), but there has been liIle understanding of how they can best be used.
It should be remembered that the RRS Sir David Attenborough, one of the most sophisticated vessels built in the UK, if not the world, was a British Government procurement which was tendered internationally and won competitively by a UK shipyard, namely Cammell Laird. Surely the new National Flagship can be tendered on the same basis, and thus do away with this subterfuge as a warship?
Commercial shipbuilding must be considered as a UK strategic asset. The breadth of activities involved, and the importance of the secondary industries that support shipbuilding, grant the UK a measure of capabilities that we have allowed to wither. We now have an opportunity to address this.
Design
It appears that the Flagship will be designed to carry passengers and have facilities to host receptions trade fairs and international conferences. This vessel will be of relatively small dimensions and limited capability beyond its primary role. It would be a one-off build with all the extra costs inherent in any unique design. However, there is an alternative by utilising a commercial ‘common platform’ design, such as proposed for the Britannia Maritime Aid (BMA) vessel, a far more practical, flexible and capable ship (or ships) will result.
A proven Ro-Ro Passenger Ferry Hull with all necessary accommodation and showcasing features ‘built in’, that will be more cost effective and of significantly greater volume and thereby greater capability. There is precedent: the multi-role HMNZS Canterbury was a design based on the commercial Isle of Man service RoPax Ben My Chree.
A cargo deck or decks can readily be configured as a large exhibition space, with the capability of rapidly and seamlessly being converted to stowing containers and vehicles for dealing with Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations. A self-supporting ship’s side and stern ramps will greatly facilitate the loading and unloading of vehicles, stores, equipment and containerised cargo, which will be an essential too if we are to demonstrate the best of British industry. The world is now containerised, with everything from field hospitals to prefabricated buildings, Medical Wards, clinics etc. designed to fit into standard 20-foot ISO containers. This cannot be ignored.
The UK shipbuilding industry cannot survive and flourish on one-offs. The new Flagship must in itself be an example of a cost-effective HADR ship type that can be built in Britain and be exportable to those many countries with extensive coastlines that are seeking multi-role ships of their own.
The BMA platform is exportable as a commercial RoPax vessel, thus opening up additional opportunities and kick starting a British shipbuilding export drive.
Humanitarian aid
‘We have to act. We have to act now to try and clear up some of the appalling damage we have made to the ocean ... and that is going to require positive action’ – Sir David Attenborough
The response from much of the media to the Government’s announcement of the ‘National Flagship’ has been far from enthusiastic with many questioning what the ship will be used for. A forecast cost of £200m, when the post-COVID spotlight is on fiscal responsibility, will attract hostile reviews. Conversely, a strong and significant Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) role for the new Flagship, when not engaged in Government representation or training mariners, will surely gain much support from the general public, as British aid delivered by British professionals in a British ship. The first time that this ship gets involved in any post-disaster operations it is likely to justify its existence in terms of money spent, lives saved, national pride and the enhanced standing of the UK amongst the international community.
We also have the opportunity to build a global maritime showcase on climate change with the potential for yet more favourable international publicity. By addressing the causes and consequences, demonstrating current initiatives, both education and action, the vessel can focus on climate change and ocean advocacy, which must be one of this ship’s tasks.
The list of current maritime environmental concerns covers coastal erosion, invasive species, plastics litter and of course, pollution We have the chance of demonstrating how a floating mobile platform can help to address these concerns, both from a research and a practical perspective.
For example, the UK has developed world-leading waste management systems using pyrolysis (plastic garbage in – clean energy out)– portable systems that can be transported in standard ISO containers and set up in any isolated or Island community. One such system is fitted to each of our new aircraft carriers and surely must be integrated into the new Flagship? There are also cost savings in delivering AID projects directly to Site instead of through funding third parties – where the end result is so often diluted by bureaucracy and graft.
UK Ship Registry
The recent COVID-19 crisis demonstrated the shallowness and lack of national identity in registering vessels purely where they pay the least tax, resulting in a lack of ‘ownership’ that led to many large cruise companies tied to a ship registry with little means of supporting the industry and crewmembers. The agreement for a Global Minimum Tax may adversely affect shipping companies who register their ships with Flag of Convenience (FOC) ship registries and by default create an opportunity to market the UK Flag as a robust ship registry of substance. To register this Flagship in the UK and fly the Red Ensign would be a demonstra0on of Government support for the British maritime industry. Not to do so would surely be irresponsible, a National Flagship with no Port of Registry?
Crewing
If the National Flagship has a full Royal Navy crew, it wastes the opportunity to showcase the world- class professionalism of our British Merchant Navy seafarers serving onboard some of the most sophisticated vessels, such as 6-star cruise ships, ‘super-yachts’ and the world-class Sir David Attenborough. Naval crews are needed in real warships; the current recruiting gaps cannot allow for additional personnel crewing a National Flagship. By all means carry a Royal Navy and a Royal Marine detachment, but we should not exclude our British Merchant Navy professionals from playing their part in proudly flying the flag.
Training and educaton
British maritime training leads the world and produces the most skilled seafarers and maritime professionals. The UK cer0ficate of competence is ‘Gold Standard’ and accepted without hesitation as such. The global maritime industry is headquartered in the UK – (IMO, ICS IACS, INTERTANKO, ITF etc) – and as such needs a constant supply of experienced seafarers, if the UK cannot supply then this expertise will simply be imported. Yet there is no mention of the New Flagship promoting British maritime training or the British maritime professionals. Our maritime colleges and universities are world-class and a significant number of their students are foreign nationals.
This makes it imperative that any UK National Flagship promotes British maritime training by assuming a training function as an example to others, especially the UK seafarers of tomorrow. Alongside this and trade activity the Flagship can also have a role in hosting international and regional training conferences, seminars and activities e.g. organising and teaching the value of local beach and ocean clean ups, both fiscal and educational. If, as has been suggested, the vessel is to be named in memory of the late Duke of Edinburgh, then what better way of paying tribute to the late Prince Philip than to continue internatonal delivery of the causes he believed in so passionately? This can be done by actively supporting Royal Charities with the Flagship and by carrying young people engaged in various youth initiatives, especially those linked to the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme, helping those in need and providing hundreds of young people with an unforgettable experience. This would be a practical and fitting tribute.
Conclusion
We need innovative action to counter what appears to be outdated thinking, resurrecting a model from the 1960s (in effect a ‘non-combat warship’). The opportunity is to build a National Flagship, crewed by British and perhaps Commonwealth seafarers and trainees (cadets and ratings of all disciplines, a platform for maritime training and education, directly delivering UK-funded disaster relief, aid, vaccinations, and community rebuilding projects, and equipped to carry out innovative ocean advocacy, environmental and research projects. Indeed, to quote our Prime Minister, ‘every aspect of the ship, from its build to the businesses it showcases on board, will represent and promote the best of British.’ Let us not miss this opportunity.
Defence & Scottish Independence
By Steve Coltman
When debate was in full swing for the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, defence and security were barely mentioned. As a second referendum is looking increasingly likely at some point in the next few years, it is vital that the subject of defence is given prominence and serious consideration, both in terms of the security of Scotland itself and of the whole of the British Isles.
The subject has been addressed before, of course. The SNP defence spokesperson wrote in 2012:
‘…it is generally acknowledged that potential military threats to an independent Scotland and its strategic assets and national interests would seem to be very low. The UK government’s 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) stated that the probability of large-scale military attack against the UK by another state was low, and it therefore prioritised counter-terrorism, cyber-attack, natural hazards and preventing international military crises. Whilst several aspects of this document would not apply to an independent Scotland … it is probably reasonably safe to say that the same approach to future defence might be adopted by a Scottish government. Scotland is unlikely to face a major military threat in the foreseeable future; on the other hand, there will always be the possibility of terrorism or economic disputes.’
A great deal depends on whether that threat assessment is still true (assuming it ever was, and not just wishful thinking). Even if a military threat did ‘seem to be low’, that does not mean it can be dismissed out of hand. Risk is a function of probability and consequence, not just how likely is a threat, but how serious might that threat be if it does materialise. In 2012, indeed in 2019, a pandemic such as we have experienced in the last 18 months with COVID-19 would have seemed unlikely. It is sometimes intellectually hard to deal with threats that seem low in probability but are obviously high in consequence. They have to be faced up to, nevertheless.
The subject has been addressed before, of course. The SNP defence spokesperson wrote in 2012:
‘…it is generally acknowledged that potential military threats to an independent Scotland and its strategic assets and national interests would seem to be very low. The UK government’s 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) stated that the probability of large-scale military attack against the UK by another state was low, and it therefore prioritised counter-terrorism, cyber-attack, natural hazards and preventing international military crises. Whilst several aspects of this document would not apply to an independent Scotland … it is probably reasonably safe to say that the same approach to future defence might be adopted by a Scottish government. Scotland is unlikely to face a major military threat in the foreseeable future; on the other hand, there will always be the possibility of terrorism or economic disputes.’
A great deal depends on whether that threat assessment is still true (assuming it ever was, and not just wishful thinking). Even if a military threat did ‘seem to be low’, that does not mean it can be dismissed out of hand. Risk is a function of probability and consequence, not just how likely is a threat, but how serious might that threat be if it does materialise. In 2012, indeed in 2019, a pandemic such as we have experienced in the last 18 months with COVID-19 would have seemed unlikely. It is sometimes intellectually hard to deal with threats that seem low in probability but are obviously high in consequence. They have to be faced up to, nevertheless.
Exemplary service to Crown and Country:
Remembering HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
By Sarah Ingham
Remembering HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
By Sarah Ingham
Admiral of the Sea Cadet Corps; Colonel-in-Chief of the British Army Cadet Force; Air Commodore-in-Chief of the Air Training Corps; Admiral of the Fleet; Captain General Royal Marines; Field Marshal of the British Army; Marshal of the Royal Air Force; Colonel of the Grenadier Guards; Lord High Admiral.
It takes extraordinary character, innate command and commitment to the Armed Forces to be able to carry off all these titles, among many others. His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, succeeded. Bestowed on a lesser man, there could well have been the risk of a hint of Ruritania.
The Duke’s death on 9 April 2021 was the opportunity to reflect on his contribution to public life in the United Kingdom and wider Commonwealth for more than 70 years. His funeral a week later allowed glimpses into a rich private life; whether the Land Rover he commissioned; his love of carriage driving, captured by the poignant sight of his riding gloves, cap and sugar lumps for his ponies; or the reading from Ecclesiasticus:‘Those who sail the sea tell stories of its dangers, which astonish all who hear them; in it are strange and wonderful creatures, all kinds of living things and huge sea-monsters.’
It takes extraordinary character, innate command and commitment to the Armed Forces to be able to carry off all these titles, among many others. His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, succeeded. Bestowed on a lesser man, there could well have been the risk of a hint of Ruritania.
The Duke’s death on 9 April 2021 was the opportunity to reflect on his contribution to public life in the United Kingdom and wider Commonwealth for more than 70 years. His funeral a week later allowed glimpses into a rich private life; whether the Land Rover he commissioned; his love of carriage driving, captured by the poignant sight of his riding gloves, cap and sugar lumps for his ponies; or the reading from Ecclesiasticus:‘Those who sail the sea tell stories of its dangers, which astonish all who hear them; in it are strange and wonderful creatures, all kinds of living things and huge sea-monsters.’
National Flagship
We welcome the Government's announcement of a major investment in construction of a new 'National Flagship', which, alongside the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers, will undoubtedly provide a significant projection of Britain's global power and influence in the years and decades ahead. However, we are concerned that with the navy already struggling to man their existing war fighting vessels, they should be saddled with a non combat vessel that will further dull the cutting edge of that service. While we acknowledge and agree with the government’s aim to further the commercial aspirations of Global Britain, we feel that it will be difficult to compete with the plethora of innovative rich men’s yachts that now grace the oceans of this world and a better solution will be one that, in addition to serving as a Royal Yacht, offers humanitarian intervention, Ocean advocacy and research, training and auxiliary support as required. Such a vessel is already proposed by the Britannia Maritime Aid campaign and we recommend that the government consider supporting that project.
scottish independence - the effect on the uk's defences
Defence UK works to ensure the security of the United Kingdom. With this in mind we are concerned that the Scottish Independence debate is not addressing sufficiently the issue of defence.
This is the first article of several which will attempt to redress the balance.
“If Scotland were to become independent in the next few years, what would be the implications for the defence of the British Isles (including the defence of Scotland itself)? The only honest answer is: “don’t know”. The Scots voters themselves cannot know what they might be voting for where defence is concerned. If Scotland is not properly defended against the threat from Russia it exposes the rest of the British Isles to greater danger also. The greatest benefit that Scotland brings to the defence of the UK is geography. It dominates the north-eastern North Atlantic and looks directly to the Arctic, from where a major threat may emanate. This gives over watch capability, forward basing for deploying forces into that region and forms a link in the defensive ring of choke points, from Scandinavia, through Scotland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.
It is reasonable to assume independence will be the slow death of the warship building industry in Scotland. There will inevitably be pressure from Portsmouth and Merseyside to transfer shipbuilding from the Clyde. The SNP say that RN nuclear submarines must vacate Faslane (despite it being one of the biggest employers in Scotland) and that will be a crisis for the Westminster government. There are no easy alternative bases for the nuclear deterrent force. It is easy to imagine that the government of a newly-independent Scotland would like to have its fair share of the Royal Navy, 2 or 3 frigates perhaps and also a couple of squadrons of Typhoons maybe? But so far the hints dropped by the SNP have been contradictory. The biggest uncertainty revolves around how much money an independent Scotland could afford to spend on defence. Not much, if the gloomy predictions about Scottish finances are to be believed. Figures of 1.6% and 1.1% of GDP have been suggested. In principle an independent Scotland could go one of two ways: it could aspire to have armed forces like those of Norway and Denmark, two similar-sized countries. These two countries have small armed forces but they are of high quality – modern guided missile frigates, modern fighter aircraft (both have F-35s on order) and modern main battle tanks. Or it could be like the Republic of Ireland with no real armed forces at all. The Irish Naval Service is a perfectly respectable coastguard force but it aspires to fishery protection, anti-smuggling and other ‘constabulary’ duties only. The Irish Army has two infantry brigades with a few medium armoured vehicles. It is orientated to internal security and peace-keeping duties, not proper war-fighting and Ireland has no air force (there is agreement that the UK will protect Irish air space). So, if the Scots vote for independence, which of these alternatives are the SNP promising? So far as we can tell, the SNP are not saying, although high-end armed forces like those of Norway and Denmark seem unlikely.”
Stephen Coltman - Director, Defence UK
5th May 2021
This is the first article of several which will attempt to redress the balance.
“If Scotland were to become independent in the next few years, what would be the implications for the defence of the British Isles (including the defence of Scotland itself)? The only honest answer is: “don’t know”. The Scots voters themselves cannot know what they might be voting for where defence is concerned. If Scotland is not properly defended against the threat from Russia it exposes the rest of the British Isles to greater danger also. The greatest benefit that Scotland brings to the defence of the UK is geography. It dominates the north-eastern North Atlantic and looks directly to the Arctic, from where a major threat may emanate. This gives over watch capability, forward basing for deploying forces into that region and forms a link in the defensive ring of choke points, from Scandinavia, through Scotland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.
It is reasonable to assume independence will be the slow death of the warship building industry in Scotland. There will inevitably be pressure from Portsmouth and Merseyside to transfer shipbuilding from the Clyde. The SNP say that RN nuclear submarines must vacate Faslane (despite it being one of the biggest employers in Scotland) and that will be a crisis for the Westminster government. There are no easy alternative bases for the nuclear deterrent force. It is easy to imagine that the government of a newly-independent Scotland would like to have its fair share of the Royal Navy, 2 or 3 frigates perhaps and also a couple of squadrons of Typhoons maybe? But so far the hints dropped by the SNP have been contradictory. The biggest uncertainty revolves around how much money an independent Scotland could afford to spend on defence. Not much, if the gloomy predictions about Scottish finances are to be believed. Figures of 1.6% and 1.1% of GDP have been suggested. In principle an independent Scotland could go one of two ways: it could aspire to have armed forces like those of Norway and Denmark, two similar-sized countries. These two countries have small armed forces but they are of high quality – modern guided missile frigates, modern fighter aircraft (both have F-35s on order) and modern main battle tanks. Or it could be like the Republic of Ireland with no real armed forces at all. The Irish Naval Service is a perfectly respectable coastguard force but it aspires to fishery protection, anti-smuggling and other ‘constabulary’ duties only. The Irish Army has two infantry brigades with a few medium armoured vehicles. It is orientated to internal security and peace-keeping duties, not proper war-fighting and Ireland has no air force (there is agreement that the UK will protect Irish air space). So, if the Scots vote for independence, which of these alternatives are the SNP promising? So far as we can tell, the SNP are not saying, although high-end armed forces like those of Norway and Denmark seem unlikely.”
Stephen Coltman - Director, Defence UK
5th May 2021
THE GOVERNMENT’S ‘INTEGRATED REVIEW’, COMMAND PAPER AND INDUSTRY STRATEGY
For Britain’s Armed Forces, the Government’s Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy (and the Review’s two linked documents, the Ministry of Defence Command Paper and the Defence Industry Strategy) could certainly be said to be something of a mixed bag. As Defence UK stated in our initial response to the publication of the Review, there are some good things in it, such as the explicit recognition that the UK’s strategic and economic interests require us to look beyond Europe, and the new commitment to building and strengthening alliances in the Indo-Pacific region in particular. The Review is also right to make clear that Russia and China are recognised as far and away the most significant and dangerous threats to international security, and this recognition rightly underpins both the Review and the Command Paper.
We welcome the intention set out in the Review and Command Paper to fully integrate the Reserves within the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces, and we agree that reorganising certain units of the Army to make them more nimble and expeditionary in nature should enhance Britain’s ability to constrain developing situations and hold potential adversaries at arm’s length. Increasing the UK’s stock of nuclear warheads represents a tacit acceptance that a credible British nuclear deterrence requires a credibly large mega-tonnage.
The Government’s plan to reduce the Regular Army to 72,500 personnel has understandably caused a lot of concern, especially when contrasted with the official full establishment strength, although the reduction certainly looks less shocking when the present actual number is taken into account. A smaller Army might not be so bad as long as our soldiers are equipped with the most ‘hi-tech’ weaponry available, and if there is a concerted strategy to improve recruitment and retention of ‘the best’ – an urgent requirement in view of the recent catastrophic failures in recruitment.
Greater emphasis on long-range rocket and mobile artillery fire will have a bearing on the reduction in tank numbers, while the Government’s apparently newfound commitment to short and medium range land-based air defence is long overdue. Older CH-47s are to be retired and more F35s purchased but there is no indication of what type. The Future Combat Air System carries no suggestion of a carrier element, the Sentinel R1 has been dropped and there is mention of the disposal of 14 C130s.
There is a stated intention in the Review for the MOD to have a closer working relationship with industry and draw it more fully into the country’s defence. A Defence & Security Industrial Strategy update to the 2017 Ship Building Strategy may give more details of a Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance and six Multi-Role Support Ships, plus the design of a Type 83 destroyer.
The Integrated Review and its linked documents offer a refreshing and in some respects very welcome ‘re-set’ to UK Defence policy, but there are inherent weaknesses.
LATEST GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS ON DEFENCE
Integrated Review (16 Mar 21) – Prime Minister
• “Global Britain in a Competitive Age: the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, describes the government’s vision for the UK’s role in the world over the next decade and the action we will take to 2025.”
• Lays down the UK’s vision for the UK in 2030, provides a strategic threat assessment and identifies the UK’s foreign policy priorities.
• Sets out the vision of armed forces with a “full spectrum of capabilities”, a global reach and integrated military capabilities
READ THE FULL INTEGRATED REVIEW HERE
READ THE OFFICIAL SUMMARY HERE
• Defence Command Paper (22 Mar 21) – Secretary of State for Defence
• “Defence in Competitive Age describes Defence’s contribution to the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy”
• Outlines Defence’s overarching objectives, the future battlefield, strategic approach,
Modernisation of Domains
• Includes a chapter on the MOD's relationship with industry
• This promises a "more strategic approach to industrial capability critical to our strategic and operational needs" and committed to building a more sustainable industrial base
• Not only making the UK armed forces more effective but also to contribute to national economic prosperity by creating and sustaining jobs and increasing productivity and global competitiveness
• Defence and Security Industrial Strategy (23 Mar 21) - Minister for Defence Procurement
• “The DSIS sets out a new strategic approach to the UK’s defence and security industrial sectors”
• “We will seek to maintain the ability to design, develop, test, manufacture and modify complex weapons, as well as integrate them with wider systems and sensors”
READ THE DEFENCE AND SECURITY INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY HERE
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE PHILIP, DUKE OF EDINBURGH
Defence UK send our condolences to Her Majesty The Queen and the Royal Family on the passing of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, whose devoted and unstinting service to this country will be long remembered.
In particular, we remember his support for all branches of the Armed Forces and his own distinguished service with the Royal Navy during WW2.
David Wedgwood, Chairman, Defence UK
9th April 2021
OP. GRANBY 1990-91: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF ‘FORCE INFORMATION’ IN THE GULF WAR
BY LT CDR NIGEL HUXTABLE RN
‘Force Information and Media Services in Operation Granby 1990-91’ by SJ Anglim, published in the RUSI Journal in October 1995, told the story of The Sandy Times as the major element of Force Information, a new concept deployed in 1990. It emphasized the importance of establishing and maintaining good morale throughout the troops in theatre regardless of badge or service. This year it is 30 years since the coalition victory over Saddam Hussein’s forces after the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait, and Kuwait’s eventual liberation on 28 February 1991.
For those wishing to read more about this aspect of an often overlooked British involvement in a successful conflict, the author’s first-hand experiences could be a useful introduction to understanding the benefits of bringing together novel approaches to the ever-present problems of maintaining high morale and countering misinformation in the ranks. The success of this particular approach to ‘internal communications’ in the form of Force Information worked largely due to the personalities of those involved and the small size of their team. The personal touch was read and appreciated by the audience and it is felt appropriate to include this first-hand account of their work.
As a Royal Navy Instructor officer with experience as a joint Service Mountain Expedition Leader, and running the Training Video Production facilities in Portsmouth at the Royal Naval School of Engineering & Technology (RNSETT), the chance to merge the two roles with a dash of self-sufficiency do not come around too often.
But then after returning from Scotland in the New Year of 1990/91 I was asked if I would like to join Force Information (FINFO) in the Gulf. FINFO was a new concept created at the behest of General Peter de la Billiere to provide all British troops in theatre with updates on what was happening and entrusted to set up and provide force communications mediums. Radio was provided by British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) / Services Sound & Vision Corporation (SSVC); Video was shot and edited in theatre by another Instructor officer, Lt Cdr Campbell Christie, and made good use of American ‘combat camera’ footage.
About the author
Lt Cdr Nigel Huxtable joined Dartmouth as part of IO 38. Passing out top instructor officer in December 1979. He served a MCC to 17 years and is currently working with the Royal Naval Association as Assistant General Secretary as well as for the Combined Cadet Force delivering their Leadership training courses – and still contributing his Expedition skills in the Scottish mountains.
READ THE WHOLE FASCINATING ARTICLE HERE.
