|
|
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
| | unprecedented since the East of Suez controversy in the 1960s, and has led to a | | unprecedented since the East of Suez controversy in the 1960s, and has led to a |
| | degree of public criticism by the former First Sea Lord which it would be perilous to | | degree of public criticism by the former First Sea Lord which it would be perilous to |
| − | ignore. | + | ignore.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.org/documents First Defence Documents]First Defence Website,accessed 16th November 2010 </ref> |
| | | | |
| − | ==The SDR Blueprint==
| + | The full content of the document can be accessed at the [[First Defence]] website. |
| | | | |
| − | In July 1998, the Strategic Defence Review promised the replacement of “our current
| + | ==Nuclear Disarmament versus peace in the 21st Century== |
| − | carriers from around 2012 by two larger, more versatile carriers capable of carrying a more
| + | By Dr. Julian Lewis |
| − | powerful force”. On the other hand, it was decided to reduce the number of attack
| |
| − | submarines “over the next few years from 12 to 10” and the destroyer and frigate fleet
| |
| − | from 35 to 32. It was also decided that “22 modern Sandown and Hunt class mine-hunters
| |
| − | will be sufficient rather than 25 as previously planned” (paras. 115-6). The then First Sea Lord
| |
| − | reluctantly accepted these reductions, given the promise of new carriers.
| |
| − | In a supporting essay to the Review, it was concluded that “the ability to deploy offensive
| |
| − | air power will be central to future force projection operations. But we cannot be certain that
| |
| − | we will always have access to suitable air bases” (Essay six, para. 26). Therefore, the two
| |
| − | proposed new carriers would constitute a seaborne base from which a combined force of
| |
| − | RN and RAF aircraft would be able to operate.
| |
| − | 1
| |
| − | First defence text pages-FEB 07 8/3/07 10:47 Page 1
| |
| − | 2
| |
| − | The reduction in the destroyer and frigate total to 32 was based on the numbers needed
| |
| − | for “two concurrent medium scale deployments, which is the most demanding
| |
| − | requirement for the destroyer and frigate force”; and the loss of two boats from the
| |
| − | 12-strong attack submarine force was excused on the basis that:
| |
| − | “All ten attack submarines will, however, be equipped to fire Tomahawk land attack
| |
| − | missiles to increase their utility in force projection operations (this compares with
| |
| − | previous plans to fit only seven submarines for the Tomahawk system) … This
| |
| − | rebalancing will be matched by adjustments to peacetime tasks where necessary to
| |
| − | ensure that overstretch is addressed. At the same time, we will take action to remedy
| |
| − | longstanding undermanning within the Royal Navy. In the first instance, most personnel
| |
| − | released by the changes set out above will be redeployed across the Service to
| |
| − | ameliorate current shortfalls. Once manpower problems have been solved the net effect
| |
| − | of the Review on the Navy’s Regular manpower requirement will be a reduction of some
| |
| − | 1,400.”(Essay six, paras. 24-5)
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==The Hoon Excuse==
| + | Dr Julian Lewis, Parliamentary Chairman of First Defence, is the Shadow Defence |
| − | | + | Minister dealing with nuclear deterrence and Royal Navy issues. He has served |
| − | In December 1999, a Defence White Paper duly noted that the Type 22 frigates HMS
| + | on the Defence Select Committee and was Shadow Minister for the Cabinet |
| − | Boxer, HMS Beaver and HMS London had been paid off – after only 16, 15 and 12 years’
| + | Office in the run-up to the 2005 General Election. He has been Conservative MP |
| − | service – and that the submarines HMS Splendid and HMS Spartan would follow suit in
| + | for New Forest East since 1997, and was a Deputy Director of the Conservative |
| − | 2003 and 2006 respectively. Subsequently, the destroyer and frigate force was quietly cut
| + | Research Department from 1990 to 1996. In the 1980s, he was a leading |
| − | from 32 to 31, on the grounds that the greater power and time at sea of the remaining
| + | campaigner against the CND and in favour of the decisions to acquire Trident and |
| − | vessels would compensate for the extra ship which had been lost.
| + | deploy NATO cruise missiles. A second edition of his book, Changing Direction: |
| − | This devious technique was elevated into a doctrine by the Secretary of State, Geoff
| + | British Military Planning for Post-war Strategic Defence, 1942-47, was published |
| − | Hoon, in a lecture at the Royal United Services Institute on 26 June 2003. He concluded
| + | by Frank Cass in 2003.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.info/documents/Nuclear%20Disarmament%20versus%20Peace.pdf Nuclear Disarmament]First Defence Website, accessed 17th November 2010</ref> |
| − | that “advances in technology” and “the astonishing speed with which we can
| |
| − | increasingly operate” meant that:
| |
| − | “Measuring the capability of our Armed Forces by the number of units or platforms in their
| |
| − | possession will no longer be significant”. (RUSI Journal, August 2003)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==The Plan Abandoned==
| |
| − | | |
| − | In December 2003, another Defence White Paper – entitled “Delivering Security in a
| |
| − | Changing World” – again stressed the role of the Royal Navy in projecting force “from
| |
| − | the sea onto the land”. It predicted that:
| |
| − | “The introduction of the two new aircraft carriers with the Joint Combat Aircraft early in
| |
| − | the next decade will offer a step increase in our ability to project air power from the sea.
| |
| − | The Type 45 destroyer will enhance protection of joint and maritime forces and assist
| |
| − | force projection.”
| |
| − | However, a hint of what was to come was clearly visible:
| |
| − | “Some of our older vessels contribute less well to the pattern of operations that we
| |
| − | envisage, and reductions in their numbers will be necessary.” (Cm 6041-I, para. 4.10)
| |
| − | A supporting essay to this White Paper – entitled “Scales of Effort and Military Tasks” –
| |
| − | conceded that:
| |
| − | “Since SDR our Armed Forces have conducted operations that have been more complex
| |
| − | and greater in number than we had envisaged. We have effectively been conducting
| |
| − | First defence text pages-FEB 07 8/3/07 10:47 Page 2
| |
| − | 3
| |
| − | continual concurrent operations, deploying further afield, to more places, more
| |
| − | frequently and with a greater variety of missions than set out in the SDR planning
| |
| − | assumptions. We expect to see a similar pattern of operations in the future, with the
| |
| − | emphasis on multiple, concurrent Medium and Small Scale deployments. A major lesson
| |
| − | of the last five years is that the Department and the Armed Forces as a whole have to be
| |
| − | structured and organised to support a fairly high level of operational activity at all times,
| |
| − | not as a regular interruption to preparing for a Large Scale conflict. (Cm 6041-II, para. 2.9)
| |
| − | … Building on the methodologies used during SDR New Chapter, we now divide military
| |
| − | capability into six key capability elements: Maritime, Land, Air, C4ISR, Special Forces (SF)
| |
| − | and Logistics. (Cm 6041-II, para. 2.11) | |
| − | … Our analysis suggests that in some respects – particularly for enabling assets such as
| |
| − | deployable HQs, communications and deployed logistical support – several Small Scale
| |
| − | operations are potentially more demanding than one or two more substantial operations.
| |
| − | This is particularly the case if they are in locations that are geographically remote from each
| |
| − | other and the UK. Given the signs that multiple concurrent smaller operations are
| |
| − | becoming the norm, our concurrency and endurance assumptions need to focus on each
| |
| − | of the six capability elements to ensure that our force structures can cope with this | |
| − | pattern.” (Cm 6041-II, para. 2.12)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==The Axe Falls==
| |
| − | Despite the White Paper’s admission that operations had been more numerous and varied
| |
| − | than the SDR had expected, on 21 July 2004 a Supplement to the White Paper was
| |
| − | published, slashing the size of the Fleet. Once again, the praises were sung of the
| |
| − | yet-to-be-ordered future carriers and Joint Combat Aircraft, as well as the new assault
| |
| − | ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, and the forthcoming Bay class landing ships. It was
| |
| − | then argued that:
| |
| − | “In the light of the reduced conventional threat, our revised concurrency assumptions
| |
| − | and improved networked capability, we assess that we need fewer … platforms.
| |
| − | Consequently we have a requirement for 8 Type 45 destroyers and will need 25
| |
| − | destroyers and frigates overall … We judge in the light of the reduced threat that an
| |
| − | attack submarine fleet of 8 SSNs will be sufficient to meet the full range of tasks.”
| |
| − | (Cm 6269, paras. 2.6-7)
| |
| − | The Nimrod MR2, with a less important anti-submarine role, could be reduced from a
| |
| − | total of 21 to only 16 – and, because of the anticipated “greater range and endurance” of
| |
| − | the future MRA4 aircraft, only “about 12” of these would be required to replace the
| |
| − | current Nimrods in their surveillance role. As for the mine counter-measures fleet, the
| |
| − | total of 22 set out in the SDR would now be cut to just 16. (Cm 6269, paras. 2.8-9)
| |
| − | THE STORY SO FAR
| |
| − | The logic of the Government’s treatment of the Royal Navy up to this point runs as
| |
| − | follows: all the Armed Forces were scaled down at the end of the Cold War, but
| |
| − | adjustments were needed to reflect the strategic shift from a defensive role in Europe to
| |
| − | the mounting of far-flung operations from a sea base. This required large strike carriers
| |
| − | as its centrepiece and a loss of five frigates and submarines was a price apparently worth
| |
| − | paying in 1998.
| |
| − | First defence text pages-FEB 07 8/3/07 10:47 Page 3
| |
| − | 4
| |
| − | However, instead of being reduced from 35 to 32, the frigate and destroyer force has
| |
| − | been slashed from 35 to 25. Instead of being reduced from 12 to 10, the submarine force
| |
| − | is being slashed from 12 to a maximum of eight. The carriers – one of which was
| |
| − | supposed to be in service by 2012 – have not yet been firmly ordered, and no target
| |
| − | in-service dates are now given by the Government, despite its previous willingness to | |
| − | do so. The 12 Type 45 destroyers which were projected, and which have a key role in the
| |
| − | air defence of the sea base, have been reduced to a programme of eight; but only six of
| |
| − | these have been ordered and ships seven and eight may never be built.
| |
| − | Such massive reductions might have been expected if events since the publication of the
| |
| − | Strategic Defence Review in July 1998 had shown it to be over-pessimistic in estimating the
| |
| − | future threats to our country and its interests. Yet, the opposite is the case: as was
| |
| − | admitted in the December 2003 White Paper, the number and variety of operational
| |
| − | deployments exceeded the assumptions of the SDR. What has the Government’s response
| |
| − | been? It has been drastically to weaken the Royal Navy by reducing the total of its major
| |
| − | warships whilst disingenuously arguing that their replacements need be fewer in number
| |
| − | because each of them will be more powerful than its predecessor.
| |
| − | Such an argument is wholly untenable, given that the capability of the new generation
| |
| − | destroyers, submarines and surveillance aircraft was perfectly well known when the
| |
| − | original totals required were agreed in the SDR in 1998 – before the Kosovo campaign,
| |
| − | before 11 September, before the invasion of Afghanistan and before the overthrow of
| |
| − | Saddam Hussein. In the case of the Type 45 destroyers, in particular, not only may the total
| |
| − | be as low as half-a-dozen, but the repeated requests of the Royal Navy for these to be fitted
| |
| − | with Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles have been flatly refused by the Government.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==The Verdict of the Service Chiefs==
| |
| − | | |
| − | There is only one rationale for the devastation brought by the Government to the size of
| |
| − | the Royal Navy: money. The First Sea Lord at the time of the 2004 cuts was Admiral Sir Alan
| |
| − | West. In 2003, he told the magazine Warships International Fleet Review that “no matter how
| |
| − | good a ship is, it can only be in so many places at any one time” – a specific rebuttal of the
| |
| − | Hoon argument that the number of “units
| |
| | | | |
| | + | The full article can be found here at [[http://www.firstdefence.info/our-reports/76-nuclear-disarmament]] |
| | | | |
| | + | ==External Vigilance:The Defence of a Free Society== |
| | + | By Mark Frisk MP |
| | | | |
| | + | In this paper Mark Prisk MP offers some practical ideas which government should adopt. He reinforces the notion that we |
| | + | should not only be vigilant about our security, but that by responding to the new kind of terror we do not succumb to the desired end-game of our enemy; the very end of our open and democratic society.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.info/documents/vigilance.pdf External Vigilance]The Defence of a Free Society, accessed 17th November 2010</ref> |
| | | | |
| | + | ==Notes== |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Notes==
| |
| | <references/> | | <references/> |
| − | <ref>[http://www.firstdefence.org/documents]'"First Defence website", accessed 16th November 2010 </ref>
| |
