|
|
|
Editorial
|
Progress has been extremely disappointing in realising the plans for
the future Royal Navy that were outlined by the 1998 Strategic
Defence Review - many ships expected to be under
construction by now have either been cancelled or still await
approval to be ordered. SDR seems to be regarded by
officials as an interesting but no longer relevant historical
document. |
Royal Navy at the Crossroads
17 February 2007
The warnings made in December 2006 by former First Sea Lord
Admiral Sir Alan West about further cuts in the Royal Navy could just
about be dismissed as routine lobbying. However it is reasonable
to assume that the RN's funding crisis has reached a watershed when even
the serving First Sea Lord publicly speaks out in a manner not seen for
a generation - bluntly stating that unless the Royal Navy gets
additional funding, as a naval power the UK will decline to the level of
Belgium.
It seems that economies in the fleets support and training budget, once
accepted as short term measure necessary to release funds for operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan have now been institutionalised and built in to
future funding plans, with depressing effects on readiness levels.
With uncertainty also surrounding long promised orders for new ships and
submarines, the First Sea Lord is apparently warning that his "red line" may about
to be passed - although confusingly he apparently retracted some of his
statements in a later official MOD press release.
We seem to have reached a situation where the next few months
will see the government either approve long delayed key projects such as
the Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) and include a non-trivial real increase in
base (i.e. above and beyond exceptional provisions for Iraq and Afghanistan) defence spending
as part of in the Treasury's current comprehensive spending review, or face a highly
public collapse in the moral of the armed forces and the resignation of
senior officers who clearly feel unable to continue to make excuses to the men
and women they lead.
It should perhaps be emphasised that official statements continue to
indicate support for the CVF project - subject to some significant pre-conditions
such as industrial re-organisation and agreement on price. Also a
speech by Prime Minister Tony Blair on 12 January 2007
indicated some sympathy for the RN's case at the highest levels - but
that is far from equating to hard cash, particularly given that the
Prime Minister is believed to be in his last few months in office.
To avoid continuous repetition of my own views, I can but refer to
the comments I have made in previous editorials,
and I will continue to post extracts of any relevant
media reports here.
|
Article on the
DefenseNews.com website, dated 5 February
2007
Executive Warns British Carriers May Be Cancelled
By Andrew Chuter
The industry executive leading an alliance of British companies
vying for a contract to build two 65,000-metric-ton aircraft
carriers for the Royal Navy has urged a swift conclusion to
negotiations, or the project may never happen. It was only a
throwaway remark at the end of a conference, but Peter McIntosh,
the senior executive who delivered it, emphasized the possible
consequences of government and industry not quickly agreeing on a
price to build the biggest warships ever planned for the Royal
Navy. McIntosh, giving an update on the program, told an audience
Jan. 24 that if things aren’t hurried up, he is in danger of being
part of a project that would go on record as the longest program
“never to happen.” He spoke at a closed forum here, where
Britain’s leading maritime industry executives and Ministry of
Defence officials were discussing the future shape of the fleet.
|
|
Article on the
BBC website, dated 16 February
2007
Navy needs extra £1bn - admiral
The head of the Royal Navy has warned that the service needs another £1bn to
meet future foreign policy demands. Admiral Sir Jonathon Band appealed for
the cash - a third of the navy's annual operating budget - to spend on new
ships, at a journalists' briefing.
Paul Wood said Sir Jonathon had argued that Britain faced a
choice between remaining as a first division sea-going nation or,
as the officer put it, turning into Belgium. With the
government committed to an active foreign policy, the extra cash
was essential to safeguard future capabilities and deliver an
extra two aircraft carriers, he believed.
"The navy is a very special asset, and if you want to use it,
it doesn't come for nothing," he told the journalists. We're
at a scale now that requires a certain amount of investment to
maintain. You can't do deterrence unless you are a really
professional outfit."
Sir Jonathon also said that he had raised the issue privately
with the prime minister and the chancellor. He summarised
his position to journalists by saying: "Give me two carriers and
just less than a billion and I will be off your back, a happy
boy."
|
|
Article in the
Daily
Telegraph newspaper, dated 17 February
2007
First Sea Lord declares war on Navy cuts
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
The First Sea Lord said yesterday that a significant increase
in spending was needed if the nation wanted the Royal Navy to
remain a "serious player".
An increase of more than 30 per cent in the Fleet's day-to-day
budget was necessary to pay for better sailors' wages, the running
of ships and improved accommodation, said Admiral Sir Jonathon
Band.
He also threatened to resign as head of the Navy if the
Government failed to agree to pay for two new aircraft carriers it
has promised.
Looming Whitehall cuts could turn Britain's powerful array of
warships into the "Belgian navy and if we do then I am gone," he
told defence journalists.
The chiefs of the three Services have made their views firmly
known to the Prime Minister and "he is clear what they are",
Admiral Band said.
It has been reported that the Navy could face having almost
half its fleet of warships permanently moth-balled under the
Comprehensive Spending Review that sets government spending for
the next four years. Asked what he would want for the Navy from
the review, Admiral Band said: "Give me two carriers and less than
a billion a year and I would be off your back tomorrow – a happy
boy."
With more than 90 per cent of Britain's goods travelling by sea
it was "in the national interest" to keep the Navy powerful enough
to protect shipping.
To keep the Navy in the big league with America and France,
day-to-day spending would need to increase by £1 billion to £4.1
billion.
This was needed for running repairs, fuel, refitting, better
pay and improved accommodation. The Admiral also said he wanted
the increase to ensure the long term future of the Navy, allowing
it to maintain aircraft carriers, a submarine strike force and an
amphibious fleet.
He said a debate was needed in Britain over the amount of money
spent on defence.
"What sort of military does this country want?" he said. "We
are at a scale now that requires a certain amount of investment."
Having a strong fleet also gave Britain leverage with America.
"They are the things that bring us to the operational table with
the US. If you get rid of us then we just say over to you France,"
he said. To remain in that league it needed the two aircraft
carriers, estimated to cost £3.6 billion, because there was "no
more expressive statement" that Britain was a global power "than
to get our four acres of UK mainland anywhere in the world".
While many minds were focused on the conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan it was important that the Navy was not "disrupted by
shorter term issues". The current running costs of £3.1 billion a
year was "the equivalent of first class stamp per day for every
taxpayer in this country," Admiral Band said.
Julian Lewis, the shadow defence minister, said it was clear
some senior Navy officers were close to resigning.
He added: "At the rate the Navy is being destroyed it is only a
matter of time, given the number of senior members who find it
necessary to speak out, that someone in the Service feels he
cannot carry on in his position."
|
|
Article in the
The Times newspaper, dated 17 February
2007
We need £1bn to rule the waves, says First Sea Lord
Fiona Hamilton
Britain could be relegated from the top division of seafaring
nations without a £1 billion investment in its fleet, the head of
the Royal Navy cautioned yesterday.
First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathan Band, who is expected to be
the next Chief of Defence Staff, said that Britain would be at
risk of “turning into Belgium” without extra funding to sustain
its naval capabilities.
The admiral later insisted, in a statement released through the
Ministry of Defence, that he was not criticising present funding
levels and said that his remarks were designed to “inform the
public debate”.
His comments come after a series of outspoken attacks on the
Government’s defence policy by former and current army chiefs.
Last year, General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Army’s most senior
commander, caused a panic in Whitehall when he contradicted
government policy on Iraq, saying that the continuing presence of
British troops was exacerbating problems. He also said that his
troops were “at the limit of their capacity”.
Sir Jonathan told his lunch guests that the extra investment
was needed to maintain the Navy, which he described as a “special
asset”, and to buy two new aircraft carriers.
He said: “If you want to use it, it doesn’t come for nothing.
We’re at a scale now that requires a certain amount of investment
to maintain. You can’t do deterrence unless you are a really
professional outfit.”
He said that he had raised the issue privately with both the
Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and summarised his position as
“give me two carriers and just less than a billion and I will be
off your back, a happy boy”.
The Conservatives said that the remarks were evidence that
Gordon Brown was refusing to provide much needed cash for the
Armed Forces.
Julian Lewis, the Shadow Defence Minister, said: “The fact that
the First Sea Lord feels it necessary to speak out in this
forthright way confirms everything we have said about the
destruction of the frontline strength of the fleet.
“The 1998 Strategic Defence Review committed the Government to
32 frigates and destroyers. We are now down to 25, with possibly 6
more to be lost despite the fact we have since embarked on 2 major
military campaigns.
“The Armed Forces are overstretched as never before. Whilst
Tony Blair increases commitments, Gordon Brown again refuses to
provide the resources necessary.”
....
Tony Blair said last month that Britain must maintain its
status as a leading defence power, with military might essential
to winning the war against terrorism.
“For our part, in Government, it will mean increased
expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our
Armed Forces — not in the short run, but for the long term,” he
said in a speech delivered on board HMS Albion.
|
|
Statement on the
Ministry of Defence website, dated 16 February
2007
First Sea Lord responds to reports over "Navy cuts"
Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sir Jonathon Band has
responded to media reports about the funding of the Royal Navy.
In a statement issued
on 16 February 2007 Admiral Band, who is professional head of the
Royal Navy, explained:
"I do not think, and have not said, that the Royal Navy needs
a £1bn-a-year extra to do its job or to keep ships at sea.
Today’s Royal Navy is funded to do what is asked of it – not
least thanks to a current investment programme of £14bn, and the
delivery of 28 new ships in the last decade alone.
"As the Prime Minister has said, if we as a nation are to
extend what our Armed Forces can do, the public needs to feel
comfortable with the economic choices needed to make that
happen.
"I welcome the way the Prime Minister has started this
debate, as I welcome the Government’s commitment to the new
aircraft carriers, and my comments today have been aimed at
informing this public debate about the long-term funding of our
Armed Forces, nothing more.”
In a separate, recent letter to the national press, Rear
Admiral Alan Massey, Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, has said:
"No claim that 19 Royal Navy ships have been decommissioned
and 11 sold since the Falklands conflict is complete without
mention of the awesome power of the ships that have replaced
them.
"The Navy is currently benefiting from a £14 billion
investment package - the largest warship building programme in
20 years. In the past decade, 28 ships and one submarine have
been put into service, including the new helicopter carrier HMS
Ocean, two Albion Class amphibious assault ships, four Bay Class
amphibious logistic support ships and three River Class patrol
vessels.
"We look forward to the arrival of new Astute Class attack
submarines, Daring Class Destroyers and two new aircraft
carriers - the largest warships ever constructed in the UK.
"The fleet today is designed to meet the demands we face in
2007, not those of 25 years ago. To claim we could not now
prevail in a conflict such as the Falklands is wrong. The Royal
Navy has the strength, not least in a greatly enhanced
amphibious capability, that sees it well prepared to respond to
any emerging threat.
"Anyone who might tangle with today's Royal Navy would come
off worse."
|
Back to top |
