Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks

[WE Branch Fanatic]

That may be true, but it does raise the question of what demands will be made on the Armed Forces by providing security for the 2012 Olympics?

Carrying on with a maritime theme, the following article (by a serving US Navy Officer) makes interesting reading:

Al Qaeda's Maritime Campaign

With only rare dramatic bursts, the maritime environment has remained relatively calm in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) but a sustained, destructive storm churns over the horizon. Despite the inherent challenges, Al Qaeda can attack, has attacked, and will again attack maritime targets. Indications point to an acceleration of the pace of maritime terrorism, heralding a coming campaign. As this campaign unfolds, however, the U.S. Navy is foundering in defining its role within the overall war. Under increasing fire from the Department of Defense for not doing its share compared to the Army and Marine Corps, the Navy has been forced to assume shore support duties typically assigned to other services to free up personnel to prosecute the war -- a clear diminution of the Navy's stature. Yet, as in World Wars I and II, the Navy has definite, significant, and traditional roles, with missions on the front lines, in fighting and defeating a global threat.

This first paragraph is equally applicable to the Royal Navy as the USN, as is the last....

In addition to maintaining a robust and formidable force protection posture to deter and defeat terrorist attacks, the Navy already plays an important and active role in the Global War on Terrorism in the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea, Arabian Sea and other forward waters but not nearly enough of a role as the only service capable of disrupting maritime terrorism overseas and denying terrorists the use of the sea. Claiming its complete and crucial role in the GWOT will allow the Navy to preempt al Qaeda from conducting a concentrated maritime terrorism campaign; otherwise the Navy can look forward to more support tasks ashore for the services conducting combat operations.

And from today's Telegraph:

Pirate attacks around the world rise by 20pc

Back to the issue of naval operations going unrecognised by the public, the RN has recently led mine clearence operations off of Iraq/Kuwait.

See here from the RN site.

The VSW UUV used in this operation is the same type successfully deployed to locate the WW2 bomb in a recent UK disposal operation in challenging diving conditions near Felixstowe off the Suffolk coast. Demonstrating the flexibility of the UUV operating from a light inflatable boat, the team was able to inform Clearance Divers of the exact location of the bomb. After just under seven hours of submerged operations the UUV successfully located the bomb’s position on the seabed in an area of very poor visibility and strong tidal streams which was proving too challenging for divers alone .

Meanwhile, back in the Arabian Gulf, both Iraqi and Kuwait navies provided patrol boats to give extra protection to the MCMVs and divers, while elements of the Iraqi Department for Border Enforcement provided security ashore where some of the Mine Danger areas were within a few hundred yards of the Iraqi coast.

The areas searched during this operation were the remnants of the MDAs created in 1991 and 2003 where Iraq had laid, or was suspected of laying, anti-invasion minefields. Following both campaigns considerable mine clearance efforts were undertaken with over 1300 mines destroyed. However there were large areas of very shallow water which have remained inaccessible for over 17 years due to the limitations of the systems available at the time.. Using the very latest in coalition mine warfare technology, the force was able to search these remaining areas using a number of systems and new techniques. The operation required more than 200 dives and over 100 remotely operated submersible vehicle runs.

Task Group Commander, Commander David Hunkin, Royal Navy said of the operation:

“Our work is directly supporting the future success of both Iraq and Kuwait by improving access to their ports and sea-lanes and we have received many messages of support from both countries. The navies of Kuwait, Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom have worked hard together over the past few months and we have built very close working relationships. Each nation has brought their own expertise and equipment and we have melded them together into an effective coalition Mine Countermeasures Task Group. It has been great to see some new equipment being used, a clear demonstration of the significant investment that nations have made in Mine Countermeasures technology over recent years. When the Mine Danger Areas are re-designated, every sailor on this mission can be proud that they have made an enduring and positive contribution to the peaceful future of the Middle East.”

Didn't see this in the media, did we? But had it gone wrong, the tabloids would be unable to restrain themselves, and the armchair experts would be out in force.

[AllTrimDoubt]

Oh for heaven's sake....this is an AIRCREW forum - if I wanted to read official spin material on maritime topics I'd go buy a copy of Navy News.

Don't you ever give up WEBF?

[Biggus]

WEBF,

If you look here

http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/

which all the public can see, the mine clearance story is mentioned. Best you spend even more hours of your life trawling the internet for news nobody else is very bothered about, it took me at least 30 seconds to find, but I am only a two finger typist!

It didn't make the newspapers because it wasn't considered interesting enough!!

As for the increase in piracy, what about it? Are you saying we should increase/maintain the size of the RN because of the piracy threat? If that is so, why not just get NATO to move half the battleships that spend their time cruising around the Atlantic and Med to move to the trouble spots. Or how about get the nations in the piracy hot spot areas to clean up their own back yard?

As for maritime terroism. It might well be possible, or have happened. But part of terroism is about disrupting/effecting as many peoples lives as possible. How many people around the world now spend extra time being searched going through airports - and every time it happens to them they are reminded exactly why!! I would suggest that from a terroist point of view the maritime environment is more a method of transportation than a mainstream method of carrying out headline grabbing attacks.

I suggest that in future you stick to posting non-aviation (don't tell me - there is a helo on the back of every battleship) naval posts on rum ration or to your MP.

[cornish-stormrider]

Biggus, ROTFLMFAO

[WE Branch Fanatic]

As for the increase in piracy, what about it? Are you saying we should increase/maintain the size of the RN because of the piracy threat?

In hindsight, perhaps I should have done. When it was finally decided to commit forces specifically to countering piracy (remember unchecked piracy means high premiums for shipping insurance, which ends up passed on to the consumer) it meant that the Falklands was left without a frigate or destroyer for several months. Perhaps when the then First Sea Lord (Admiral West) told of Commons' Defence Select Commitee (back in late 2004 or 2005) that the RN's own analysis was that the UK needed "about thirty" frigates/destroyers, he was thinking of this sort of extra commitment?

I think there are also Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the Gulf of Aden/Somalia area.

I choose not to reply at the time (I didn't bite)

As for maritime terrorism, the fact is that it has happened. It would be sensible to maintain defences against it. Likewise, making life difficult for the terrorist demands maintaining forces in places like the Med, Arabian Sea etc. It places new demands on naval aviation assets, both Lynx/Merlin flights embarked aboard frigates/destroyers or sometimes other platforms, and for Merlin and Sea King ASaCs squadrons.

[Biggus]

No doubt the RN was told to dispatch a battleship so we could be seen to doing our bit to help, all about politics. At that point the First Sea Lord needs to tell his polticial masters the effect that will have, lack of coverage in Falklands, risks incurred, and they make the decision yea or nea.

As for MPA, they are probably the French, who traditionally operate in that part of the world. This stikes me as an ideal MPA scenario, certainly in the deeper water, searching large areas of ocean rapidly and calling in naval assets when required.

Why no Nimrods? Simple because there aren't enough to go around. And we will only get 9 MRA4s to replace 20 odd MR2s.

So, if you are going to use priracy as a reason to increase the destroyer/frigate fleet, which the admiralty traded off against the carrier purchase, then please get the RAF another 11 MRA4s while you are at it....

I wish you luck, but would suggest banging your head against a brick wall would be more productive in the long term...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

What was the reason (excuse) given for cutting the MRA4 buy? I'm sure the 1998 SDR said we needed about twenty.

[Biggus]

The same reason the RN were going to get...

12, then 8, now 6 Type 45s

8 (was it 8), now 6 (if you're lucky) Astutes....

MONEY!!!!!!

By the way....and it's not a dig.....

While the RN, according to you, has not got enough warships to maintain coverage in the Falklands, they can find 2 Frigates to send away on Exercise...

TAURUS 09 : News and Events : Royal Navy

All a matter of priorities?!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The period during which there was no frigate or destroyer in the South Atlantic region was only a few months - but in any case I think the Government decides priorities, not the Service Chiefs.

The question I was asking about MRA4 numbers was to see if the Government had announced a reason for needing less. Unfortunately, do more with less seems to be a common theme.

Would increasing spending on defence equipment be an acceptable way of helping manufacturing industry to weather the economic form? As an easy example - the world-wide recession means a reduction in the demand for civil aircraft, with knock on effects for suppliers. But many of these suppliers also make parts for military aircraft, so ordering more MRA4s (say) would help keep them ticking over........ as well as helping maintain sufficient forces.

Likewise, defence PFIs may be effected by the banking crisis. I don't think that is an acceptable state of affairs, did nobody think about what might happen? I also understand from other forums that the FSTA PFI contract is written in a way that stops the MOD from fitting AAR equipment to other aircraft - Hercules or A400M perhaps? How on earth allowed that to be in the contract? No only is an important capability in private hands, but expansion in an emergency is not allowed....

[Bunkerbomb]

Good piece on the state we're in

See below for a link that takes the last 12 years apart in some detail and attempts to show how we ended up in this mess. It's worth ploughing through this...


http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files...ish_dorman.pdf

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Thanks for that. We do seem to be in a real mess.

Going back to an earlier point, doesn't it seem odd that at a time public spending is being increased and projects brought forward, defence projects are being delayed, despite the fact that important parts of our industrial and technological base are at risk of being lost forever.

On the side of the workers? Don't think so.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Well, it appears that not everyone is convinced by the current mantra of COIN only.

From War is Boring: U.S. Should Think Twice Before Rushing to an All-Counter-Insurgency Force

But we shouldn’t forget that COIN is not the only kind of potential battle out there. Today the military is mostly worried about building stuff, but it could very well be called upon to break things later. We need to be flexible.

Consider: In Darfur, the Sudanese government has used tanks and helicopters to de-populate villages, and is smuggling arms to rebel groups in neighboring countries. In Myanmar, we’ve seen the Junta use conventional troops to ruthlessly hunt down political opponents and seize aid. In Zimbabwe, an unpopular, corrupt government clings to power through brutality and military might. In North Korea, we see an oppressive regime becoming a nuclear power.

Increasingly, the world’s “bad actors” mix conventional troops with insurgent tactics, in a form of “hybrid war.” (Marine General James Mattis has emphasized this point.) Tackling these challenges might mean an equally hybrid response, with fighter jets and destroyers lobbing high explosives, and COIN ground troops following up, post-combat.

It’s important that we recognize the wide range of threats we face today, and have the right tools and the strategies to deal with each.

Going back to the issue of piracy, HMS Portland has had some success, including this very recent interception.

In co-ordination with a Spanish maritime patrol aircraft, HMS Portland's crew identified, pursued and subsequently conducted a boarding of the suspicious vessels. They found articles that indicated the skiffs had been involved in or were about to conduct an act of piracy, and were clearly not those of innocent fishing vessels.

Also mentioned here, and on the MOD website.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the Telegraph: Ministers accused of 'sea blindness' by Britain's most senior Royal Navy figure

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Sir Jonathon Band, First Sea Lord, says there is a pressing need to hold a debate on Britain’s defence priorities. He discloses that he has even had to remind ministers - keen to set more missions for the Royal Navy while simultaneously culling the fleet - a ship can’t be in two places at once. The admiral, stepping down after three and a half years, even warns that Britain is “losing the ability to think strategically”.

“I think government could continue to learn,” says Band, known in senior defence circles as “T1SL”. “Until recently there’s been sea blindness. Is it because people get into politics for domestic rather than international reasons? There are a whole bunch of issues, some of it is background.”

And he warns politicians who see defence as ripe for cuts: “You don’t need to be an economist to realise major countries face a challenging outlook, but just because things are tough, don’t stop insuring your house. We have to have a strategic debate. Looking round the world, I don’t see it calming down; I don’t see any argument for Britain doing less.”

Asked if government would have to either moderate its ambitions or increase budgets, he says: “There is bound to be a limit on ship building, that’s fine. All I’m saying, with the size of fleet, I can’t go any more places. If anyone wants me to go somewhere I say ‘fine, I’m very happy to go there, but where don’t you want me to go?’”

He confirms this was “an actual discussion” he’d had with ministers. “The Gulf is clearly a priority, and will remain so with a bi-lateral agreement with Iraqi,” he says. “In the Mediterranean we put a ship in whenever we can afford to. In the Caribbean and northern Atlantic we have dependent territories and fight the drug trade. We used to patrol that all year, now less than half the year with a full warship. Down south we have a deterrence mission [for the Falklands], and en route try to service our engagement with South American and West African friends.”

Additionally, he has tried to fly the White Ensign in the Far East to reflect the rise of China and India: “Turn the clock forward 20 years and we will be worrying about Asia and the West Pacific. In the last six months we’ve conducted exercises with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, India, Bangladesh, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. If you cut the naval cake too far you just say: ‘OK, we won’t go to the Far East.’ Strategically, that would be incredibly stupid.”

He predicts the Royal Navy’s workload will increase whichever party is in power: “There may be a question of what we can afford, but we shouldn’t muddle that with what we would like to do. The primary question is ‘what is the level of business we should be in?’, then ‘can we afford it?’ And if we can’t, what do we then reduce?” Instead, the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan has led Britain to slash capabilities, leaving the services fighting among themselves for diminishing resources. Even General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, has attacked Band’s order of two aircraft carriers as “cold war relics”.

But Band hit backs, saying ships are quickly deployable: “Clearly big chunks of naval equipment are more expensive per unit than army capability, such as a tank. But we don’t have a hundred ships, sadly. You have to be careful what you compare.” He also points out that if “flexibility” is the new military mantra, bigger ships allow you to transport more manpower and add more weaponry. The First Sea Lord has seen his order of 12 Type 45 Destroyers halved. In a clear swipe at ministers, he ridicules the view that says “my god, a Type 45 is very expensive.” He said: “If you want to protect a task group, that’s what you need. And then, its jolly cheap, and you’re jolly glad you have it.”

The last defence review was a decade ago, prompting the question: do we need another one? “Bearing in mind all the calls on public expenditure and the fact the world evolves its right to have frequent reviews. So I don’t think it would be wrong at all to answer many of the questions you’ve asked. What do you want to do? How much money have you to do it? How do you cut the cake? And I think it would be helpful to the services, and to the country. In a classic sense we are as safe from invasion as any period I’ve studied. So people swarming on our beaches of the UK: that’s not a threat. But we cannot ignore insidious threats.”

He contends that Britain’s island status must place the sea at the heart of thinking. Piracy, terrorism, drugs and people trafficking, protecting energy and trade routes; all point to an increased naval role, even leaving aside possible wars.

“Pirates are not respectful of whether we are in Afghanistan,” he says. “People have no idea that by 2012 their lights are staying on because of liquid gas arriving in Milford Haven daily. There is a world out there with a huge maritime element. I mean, we call it earth; we should call it the sea.”

In a candid remark, he says the Ministry of Defence “has been outstandingly bad at predicting the future.” As such we should not assume Britain won’t be dragged into major wars needing heavy equipment. “I remember debates where people said there was no chance of Britain deploying armoured forces abroad,” he recalls. “Within three years we were helping recapture Kuwait.” Before that Britain was fretting about the Soviets while Argentina quietly invaded the Falklands. And now intelligence experts worry about terrorism, giving rise to an assumption that state v state warfare is dead.

“I just say ‘what evidence is there of that?’ I’m not clever enough to predict that if states run out of water or energy they wouldn’t fight other states.” So don’t mothball all the gunboats just yet? He laughs: “All great countries have a navy.” And the rising powers are investing fortunes in fleets. “They are wise,” he says, leaving hanging the question of our own intelligence. It frustrates Band that ships are one of the few things Britain still does better than pretty well anyone – we train half the world’s navies – yet the government is cutting the fleet drastically, leaving it with less than a quarter of the 413 warships it enjoyed in 1964.

But as Britain is a nation of reduced circumstance, he is asked if all this defender of the seven seas ambition is a bit grandiose. “I don’t agree,” he replies. “Wherever we are in social evolution we are still an island. There is a choice how much a government wishes to play in the world and have a defence element to its tool kit. The hard facts are we did have an empire, are part of the Commonwealth, are a member of the security council, are a nuclear state, are a key country in NATO and the EU, and have a strategic alliance with the United States.”

[must keep] The hitherto diplomatic First Sea Lord admits sailors are “frustrated” and “disappointed” that public, media and ministers fail to recognise the Navy’s huge contribution to recent conflicts. Last winter up to 40per cent of our forces in Afghanistan were Navy, but because Royal Marines are described as “troops” and helicopter pilots are assumed to be RAF, the two other services are credited with carrying the burden of Labour’s adventurism. But constant – and unforeseen – war has left the Navy “very stretched”. He also notes that much of the navy’s work is preventative, and goes un-noticed.

He warns that all three services need more support but sends a clear semaphore to Sir Glenn Torpy, his opposite number in the RAF, to keep his hands off the Fleet Air Arm. Above all, investment is needed to maintain even a diminished fleet: “We are no longer the second largest navy, but we are the only navy with that global capability and frankly, the only professional partner of note to the Americans.”

The First Sea Lord declares he will spend his retirement as he spent his career, “messing around with boats”, but in a clear sign that his battles with defence ministers have left him listing, he concludes: “I can assure you one thing I won’t do is go into politics.”

[minigundiplomat]

"We are no longer the second largest navy, but we are the only navy with that global capability and frankly, the only professional partner of note to the Americans.”

Absolute crap. We had the most powerful navy in the world about 50 years ago. Now we have a couple of ships, some rusting subs and a couple of rowing boat sized carriers built by the cheapest bidder. When is the RN going to let the Nelson days go?

Gone are the days where you loaded a battalion of marines onto a ship and sailed, hoping the natives wouldn't have surrendered in the six weeks it took to get there.

Now, you can send the battalion of marines by C17 and have them there in 24 hours.

And don't give me any of that crap about having a friendly airfield in an unfriendly area. As Veritas drew to a close and Jacana started in early 2002, we (the RAF) had to bust a gut to get from the N Arabian sea to Bagram, with as many of the marines as possible, as no one would let you put them ashore and CHF didnt have the legs. Eventually the RN put them off in Oman and the RAF picked them up from there.

I don't like Torpy one iota, but I do get a bit sick of hearing the RN's turqouise tinted view of the world. Stop playing the victim and get on with life. A lot of the RN are doing a good job in the desert, concentrate on that instead of whinging about ships FFS!

[Widger]

Minigundiplomat (AKA Chinook force crew from Odiham)

What a very unbiased and well thought out strategic perspective you have. Time for a trip to the college of knowledge for you I think or are you not eligible for such dizzy heights?

Absolute crap. We had the most powerful navy in the world about 50 years ago. Now we have a couple of ships, some rusting subs and a couple of rowing boat sized carriers built by the cheapest bidder. When is the RN going to let the Nelson days go?

Well where do we start here. Whilst escort number s are down, the RN has over the last decade, restructured its force around the Marines. The RN now has exceptional lift capacity (Ocean, Albion, Bulwark, Lyme, Mounts, Cardigan and Largs bay). Whilst I recognise the strategic importance of the C17, for fast deployment of a limited force, there is no substitute for the capability that can lift a whole regiment and their vehicles and ammunition. You may well be able to get the marines there in 24 hours, but if you cannot sustain them whilst they are there, then what is the point? Dont forget the most of the supplies, fuel, ammunition etc for both Iraq, GW1 and 2, Saif Sareea, and Afghanistan were/are transported by sea and road, not by C17 or C130. That said, there is clearly a need nor more strat AT, just as there is a need for more Type 45 and T23.

And don't give me any of that crap about having a friendly airfield in an unfriendly area. As Veritas drew to a close and Jacana started in early 2002, we (the RAF) had to bust a gut to get from the N Arabian sea to Bagram, with as many of the marines as possible, as no one would let you put them ashore and CHF didnt have the legs. Eventually the RN put them off in Oman and the RAF picked them up from there.

Once again, the flexibility of strat AT and SH is acknowledged, but they are just one part of the "golf bag" to quote, "we are not playing pitch and putt", a few soldiers equipped with yorkie bars is not going to get the job done. "CHF didnt have the legs", so lets get V22 then, which is also one of the many platforms that can operate from CVF, not just F35/JCA/Dave. You can even maintain your Chinook in the hangar without having to take the blades off, now that is progress!

I don't like Torpy one iota, but I do get a bit sick of hearing the RN's turqouise tinted view of the world. Stop playing the victim and get on with life. A lot of the RN are doing a good job in the desert, concentrate on that instead of whinging about ships FFS!

Most of the whingeing that I hear comes from the light blue, on here and elsewhere, together with a few bricks being thrown over for good measure. The RN has been trying to get on with the job, but the attentions of persons like Torpy have not helped at all. The RN has re-structured and invested wisely. The RM are better equipped now than for many years, the FAA are doing a fantastic job, not just in providing CAS, ISTAR and SH capability but in many other places around the world. Adm Band's message did not thrown the bricks back over the wall, in fact I thought after all the vitriol he has been subjected to over the last 12 months, he was extremely diplomatic. His message is that Politicians, the public, and some in the other services, have been blinded by the present conflict and are forgetting the bigger strategic piece. We will not be in Afghanistan forever and there are other areas of the world in which we must maintain our interest, be it in a combat or defence diplomacy role. Reach, sustainability and the ability to poise are key elements of a maritime force and those capabilities are complimentary to many of the other abilities of which you alude to, one of which is speed.

So ..well done for all the work that JHC and Strat AT is doing at the moment, I do not believe that you get appropriate credit, especially within your own Service, but you must remember, that unless you are flying Typhoon, Harrier or Tornado, you do not have the mental capacity to amount to anything much at all.

Keep Safe

[WE Branch Fanatic]

mgd

Your comment about "moving a battalion of marines by C17" made me think about what do you do about getting their vehicles etc there. Heavy things like armoured vehicles are moved mostly by sea, then transported overland to Afghanistan.

This report from the NAO is worth reading: Support to High Intensity Operations

It reinforces the value of helicopters and of transport aircraft, but also makes mention of seaborne logistics. Protecting this shipping is a NATO naval role - imagine the consequences of a vessel full of Mastiffs being sunk or captured.

This page from Hansard from last November is worthy of note as well.

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current tasks set by his Department are for the Royal Navy’s (a) destroyers and frigates and (b) submarines; and how many of each of these classes of warship are required to be on station to fulfil each task. [235627]

Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The current tasks for destroyers, frigates and submarines are as shown.

I have included the number of destroyers and frigates on station but I am withholding detailed information on the numbers of submarines on task as its release would, or would be likely to prejudice national security.

DD/FF current tasks - Number on station

Op TELIC (Nth Arabian Gulf) - One permanently committed

Op CALASH (Indian Ocean —counter terrorism and capacity building coalition) - One permanently committed

NATO Response Force - One nominated and permanently assigned to a standing force

Atlantic Patrol Task (South) - One permanently committed

Support to Strategic Deterrence - One nominated, at extremely high readiness and activated when required

Atlantic Patrol Task (North) - One core hurricane season only (May to November)

Integrity of the UK - Three nominated, one immediate, two extremely high readiness and activated when required

ESDP Counter Piracy - One temporarily assigned pending confirmation of the requirement

Submarines

Strategic Intelligence —

Support to Strategic Deterrence —

Integrity of the UK —

Op TELIC and CALASH —

Falkland Islands Contingency —

The number of units on station does not reflect the generation factors which are the number of hulls essential to produce the required units for each station. These factors vary and are dependent on whether a task is rouled (continuous) or non-rouled. The figures also exclude the units held at very high readiness for contingent operations.

This was before the RN was formally committed to anti piracy opeartions. I would point out that ships assigned to the NATO Response Force participate in Operation Active Endeavour - see this from NATO.

Maritime activities in the Arabian Sea and elsewhere are connected to what happens on land in Afghanistan (and other places), such as interdicting drug smuggling that the Taliban uses to raise funds, and keeping a lid on other nefarious activities like moving people or weapons around.

The above question and answer did not mention the roles and ativities of carriers, amphibious forces, mines counter measures vessels, hydrographic survey ships, patrol vessels, RFAs, or Fleet Air Arm units.

[Mobile Muppet]

Widger/WEBF

Can you tell me, are the RORO ferries that take the supplies down to the falklands (nearly always under utilised) or OP Telic manned by the RN or merchant seaman?

MM

[WE Branch Fanatic]

As I'm sure you know, they are merchant vessels manned by merchant seaman. However, in the case of the Point Class operated on behalf of the MOD under a PFI scheme the crews are Sponsored Reservists. See more info here.

I don't see what point you're trying to make. My point was that in operational theatres they need naval protection. We should remember terrorists have attacked maritime targets before and will do so again. Hezbollah used Iranian suppiled anti ship missiles. The LTTE Sea Tigers used various suicide craft, light aircraft and even divers and improvised mines and torpedoes - they even had built a suicide midget submarine but it was captured. Al Qaeda has used suicide boat attacks in harbour and at sea, they also used suicide bombers to attack a US boarding party in the Gulf, planned to crash explosive laden aircraft into Western naval vessels in the Gulf, and considered using a mother ship to launch multiple suicide attacks with speedboats.

Given the diverse range of possible threats it would seem like a sensible precaution to escorts ships carry vehicles and other equipment for the Afghan theatre. The terrorists only have to be lucky once - we have to be lucky every time.

As to other maritime aspects of countering terrorism, see this Telegraph article from 2004. I must have missed it before, but it hopefully is a reminder that the war on terror (sic) is not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would also point out that RN aviation assets, not just those carried by frigates/destroyers, but also CVS, LPH and LPD based ones, and ones based aboard RFAs, have played an important part in current operations.

[elderlypart-timer]

The debate about allocation of resources for current COIN ops and future ops involving other threats is very important. However what worries me is that those in all political parties who have always been hostile to the armed forces want us to see this as an either/or question. For instance they want us to think that either we provide the Army with more helicopter lift or we have a deep water navy. That's a false choice. We should reject the view that the Chiefs of Staff should fight over who gets the biggest proportion of the defence budget. Instead the Chiefs should unite about the need for a bigger defence budget and not make any comments about individual programmes until that is agreed by their political masters. Unity is strength.

[ORAC]

I see the Navy has used the Torygraph to deliver a diatribe against the world again - and the RAF in particular. As if the RAF hadn't taken even more cuts than the Navy....

The Navy Strikes Back