Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Thread Starter
Scud-u-Like
I hadn't thought of that. I hope they're not from the far right...
Whilst looking for stuff on the web to put in/on the Sea Jet thread, I was dismayed to find that those BNP Scum had hijacked defence issues....
I hadn't thought of that. I hope they're not from the far right...
Whilst looking for stuff on the web to put in/on the Sea Jet thread, I was dismayed to find that those BNP Scum had hijacked defence issues....
Guest
Posts: n/a
A cunning plan to save the armed forces - we all enrole on a minorities conversion course!
We can have sqns of illegal immigrants, regiments of homosexuals and ships full of 16-year old single parents. All of which will naturally have to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Sorry if this sounds flippant - no I take that back, I'm not sorry at all. Short of the body bags turning up at Brize, this seems like the only way we'll ever get any money.
Who knows, it might just work. After all, isn't the government supposed to be equal opportunities employer - they'd have to give us some cash!
We can have sqns of illegal immigrants, regiments of homosexuals and ships full of 16-year old single parents. All of which will naturally have to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Sorry if this sounds flippant - no I take that back, I'm not sorry at all. Short of the body bags turning up at Brize, this seems like the only way we'll ever get any money.
Who knows, it might just work. After all, isn't the government supposed to be equal opportunities employer - they'd have to give us some cash!
Last edited by CatpainCaveman; 3rd Mar 2004 at 06:49.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF et al,
Sorry for coming to this thread relatively late on.
I have read with interest all the posts made so far.
Lots of well –argued points made but I feel the most telling was the quote in a post that commended the British Armed Forces for punching above their weight for so long. This is the crux of the matter as I see it. Although I am a Liberal (with a capital L) I am not peacenik loony. I have for the last 25 years had, some would say, an unhealthy interest in defence and military matters.
What has to be realised is that since the end of the First World War the UK has been operating above its ability to properly pay for its military. We need to take stock of whom we are and what we NEED to do as opposed to what we would LIKE to do. I would like to give 3 example countries to compare with the UK and to look at their Armed Forces. The countries are Germany, Canada and Japan. If you look at these three countries and then look at the more costly line items in the defence budget of the UK it is difficult to justify the expenditure. Neither of these three countries has any carriers nor any plans for them in the future. None of these countries has a nuclear deterrent or any known plans to acquire one. In the cases of Germany and Japan both of these countries are heavily reliant on oil from the Middle East yet they do not seem to have the same need for massive navies. The Japanese and the Germans both have “warrior” heritages like us Brits so it is not like the Swedes or the Swiss who just prefer to be neutral. The Canadians have massive coastal issues to deal with. Furthermore for the whole of the Cold War they were as much on the frontline as we were.
The point I am trying to make in my own hapless style is to quote Garth from Wayne’s World, “Live in the now” and prepare for the future that is coming not what we would like it to be. The warfare of the future will bear no resemblance to that we have seen so far. We are talking unconventional warfare to the max. Carriers, nukes, MBTs and Typhoons are for the past. Lets look to the future.
Another way to look at it is that most of the world will be looking to purchase these new emergent technologies so lets get a shift on and make our way to the forefront of developing it rather than crying over our chips.
Cheers
BHR
Sorry for coming to this thread relatively late on.
I have read with interest all the posts made so far.
Lots of well –argued points made but I feel the most telling was the quote in a post that commended the British Armed Forces for punching above their weight for so long. This is the crux of the matter as I see it. Although I am a Liberal (with a capital L) I am not peacenik loony. I have for the last 25 years had, some would say, an unhealthy interest in defence and military matters.
What has to be realised is that since the end of the First World War the UK has been operating above its ability to properly pay for its military. We need to take stock of whom we are and what we NEED to do as opposed to what we would LIKE to do. I would like to give 3 example countries to compare with the UK and to look at their Armed Forces. The countries are Germany, Canada and Japan. If you look at these three countries and then look at the more costly line items in the defence budget of the UK it is difficult to justify the expenditure. Neither of these three countries has any carriers nor any plans for them in the future. None of these countries has a nuclear deterrent or any known plans to acquire one. In the cases of Germany and Japan both of these countries are heavily reliant on oil from the Middle East yet they do not seem to have the same need for massive navies. The Japanese and the Germans both have “warrior” heritages like us Brits so it is not like the Swedes or the Swiss who just prefer to be neutral. The Canadians have massive coastal issues to deal with. Furthermore for the whole of the Cold War they were as much on the frontline as we were.
The point I am trying to make in my own hapless style is to quote Garth from Wayne’s World, “Live in the now” and prepare for the future that is coming not what we would like it to be. The warfare of the future will bear no resemblance to that we have seen so far. We are talking unconventional warfare to the max. Carriers, nukes, MBTs and Typhoons are for the past. Lets look to the future.
Another way to look at it is that most of the world will be looking to purchase these new emergent technologies so lets get a shift on and make our way to the forefront of developing it rather than crying over our chips.
Cheers
BHR
BHR
Without meaning to decry the basic thrust of your arguement I would say your use of Japan as an example is a poor choice.
Japans military does not have carriers because it is supposed to be a "Self Defence Force". Carriers are cocsidered offensive, and echoes of WW2 etc, which doesn't mean that the Japanese military wouldn't like to have them! Japan has F-15s, son of F-16, about 100 P-3s (MPA), AWACS, would like to acquire tankers (again considered potentially offensive in nature), and a fairly massive (larger than the RN I think) and modern navy (just look in Janes fighting ships) which has units routinely operating far from the Pacific region, etc!!
Without meaning to decry the basic thrust of your arguement I would say your use of Japan as an example is a poor choice.
Japans military does not have carriers because it is supposed to be a "Self Defence Force". Carriers are cocsidered offensive, and echoes of WW2 etc, which doesn't mean that the Japanese military wouldn't like to have them! Japan has F-15s, son of F-16, about 100 P-3s (MPA), AWACS, would like to acquire tankers (again considered potentially offensive in nature), and a fairly massive (larger than the RN I think) and modern navy (just look in Janes fighting ships) which has units routinely operating far from the Pacific region, etc!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus,
I did not say that any of the examples were perfect fits. I was postulating that we need to change our focus.
We no longer have an empire. We no longer have large numbers of overseas dependencies (I know we still have some before anyone jumps in on that). We no longer have a need for a nuclear deterrent since unique conditions that potentially supported the desire to have one have long since gone ( I do not want to hijack this thread on the pros and cons of a continued nuclear deterrence. I would be happy to start a separate thread on that should anyone so desire). We no longer have a War Ministry but instead a Ministry of DEFENCE. As you have stated carriers are offensive so we do not need them.
As for the Japanese Navy operating far from the Pacific region I do not understand the significance of that. The Irish Navy recently operated in the Indian Ocean with I believe a visit to Australie and New Zealand (although I could be wrong about the ANZ visits) but that hardly makes them an offensive force.
WEBF,
As to your point about the publics lack of knowledge about defence matters being the reason that the defence budget gets cut I have to disagree. Since when has public opinion mattered either way on government policy decisions. I am not only talking about this government but almost every one I can remember and before that too.
With regards to the death of the Queen Mum keeping the Sea Jet scrapping off the front pages of the papers I think you are being rather naďve. It would have had to have been the slowest newsday in the last 100 years for the Sea Jet to have made front page news with its retirement. I am not even sure it made the front page on the Navy News in that period but I could be wrong I have missed a couple of issues.
Cheers
BHR
I did not say that any of the examples were perfect fits. I was postulating that we need to change our focus.
We no longer have an empire. We no longer have large numbers of overseas dependencies (I know we still have some before anyone jumps in on that). We no longer have a need for a nuclear deterrent since unique conditions that potentially supported the desire to have one have long since gone ( I do not want to hijack this thread on the pros and cons of a continued nuclear deterrence. I would be happy to start a separate thread on that should anyone so desire). We no longer have a War Ministry but instead a Ministry of DEFENCE. As you have stated carriers are offensive so we do not need them.
As for the Japanese Navy operating far from the Pacific region I do not understand the significance of that. The Irish Navy recently operated in the Indian Ocean with I believe a visit to Australie and New Zealand (although I could be wrong about the ANZ visits) but that hardly makes them an offensive force.
WEBF,
As to your point about the publics lack of knowledge about defence matters being the reason that the defence budget gets cut I have to disagree. Since when has public opinion mattered either way on government policy decisions. I am not only talking about this government but almost every one I can remember and before that too.
With regards to the death of the Queen Mum keeping the Sea Jet scrapping off the front pages of the papers I think you are being rather naďve. It would have had to have been the slowest newsday in the last 100 years for the Sea Jet to have made front page news with its retirement. I am not even sure it made the front page on the Navy News in that period but I could be wrong I have missed a couple of issues.
Cheers
BHR
Thread Starter
Bill
You may have point about nukes, but carriers, MBTs and Fast Jets have all been used in recent operation, including several wars and various peace support operations.
As Biggus says, the Japanese MSDF is, in reality, a major blue water fleet. I thought they they were considering acquiring a carrier with AV8B(+)s - maybe ORAC or Archemedes can confirm this....
As for carriers being offensive - well I won't mention maritime air defence (here anyway) but there is no black and white dividing line between defensive and offensive systems.
As regards the publicity over the Sea Harrier, you are probably right however.
Back to my single service advocacy
The following was an article early last year in a Cornish(?) newspaper called the Sunday Independant. I expect similar pieces could be written on the other services too:
MIKE Critchley wrote his first British Warships and Auxiliaries guide in 1979. Since then, 16 editions of the Royal Navy 'Bible' have appeared but each time, the role of the Senior Service has been eroded in some way. The latest edition is published this week and while the former active serviceman remains richly proud of the Royal Navy, he is fearful of the future, as JOHN COLLINGS discovered
MIKE Critchley's analogy between the UK's ailing Health Service and what was once the country's Senior Service won't be lost on his peers.
`Were I a doctor, I might diagnose the "patient" as critical,' says the Cornish author and doyen of Naval publications.
`But given the correct treatment, the prognosis could be fine - however, the next five years are going to be decisive.'
Since leaving the Navy, Mike has seen his Liskeard-based Maritime Books cottage industry flourish. Sadly, he can't say the same about the service of which he was once so proud to be a part.
His handbook guide to the ships of our fleet is so detailed, from pennant numbers to dimensions, complements and even builder's details, that it has become the `Bible' for those in authority as much as members of the general public who might almost regard it as an adult's `I Spy' as they look out over the Hamoaze at Torpoint or Plymouth Sound.
But his latest tome carries a health warning which Whitehall will only ignore at the peril of putting its citizens at risk in an age of heightened terrorist activity and at a time when servicemen from the Army, Royal Air Force and the Navy have been enjoying quality time with their families in the West Country; many of them openly saying that they expect the order for a war on Iraq to be given as early as this week.
Critchley says that the Senior Service remains as professional as ever and will respond to all the demands placed on it with its usual `can do' attitude.
But he warns that the Government must stop `salami slicing' of what remains of the fleet: `There will be a time, in the not too distant future, when it (the Navy) will have to put up its hands and say "Stop!"'
In a wide-reaching examination of the service's capabilities, Critchley questions what would happen if fanatics drove small plastic boats filled with explosives into a cruise liner; expresses concern that the new Astute submarine class is 18 months behind schedule; queries whether, on the eve of a potential war, the UK should only have one carrier in active service and advances the thought that, in the case of destroyers and frigates, the Treasury is selling off the family silver.
He attacks Press mocking of the grounding of HMS Nottingham off the Australian coast earlier this year, predicting that history will show how the crew fought relentlessly to save their ship and should be feted, not laughed at.
And, in a final ground-breaking move, he puts the case for a floating hospital which can spend 95 per cent of its time alongside but is readily and easily deployable should a situation arise.
`The RN cannot truly remain a credible force if the Government continues to "salami slice" what remains of the active fleet during the crucial "gap years" before promised new tonnage (ships) arrive,' he warns.
THE ROLE OF WATER
SEAS cover 70.8 per cent of the world's surface, and two thirds of the world's population live within 100 miles of the coast. More than 150 of the 185 member states of the UN are coastal states. Britain has a world-wide expatriate community of over 10million and UK citizens make 34million journeys abroad each year.
The UK is the world's sixth largest trading nation exporting a higher percentage of its Gross Domestic Product than France, Germany, USA and Japan.
We export more than a quarter of everything we produce, of which almost 95 per cent by weight (Some Ł250billion of our trade) is transported by sea.
The UK merchant shipping sector is still increasing. The fleet is the 13th largest in the world and second in the EU after Greece. There are some 27,000 British merchant seafarers.
The UK has 10,500 miles of coastline and in an average year RN aircraft expect to conduct over 500 search and rescue operations.
The UK has an Economic Fishing Zone of 270,383 square miles (three times the land area of the UK). Under the Defra contract, the Fishery Protection Squadron was required to conduct 950 patrol days in the last two years.
Says Mike Critchley: `Against such a background, the need for a modern, flexible and strong Royal Navy to preserve our interests, protect our seafarers, maintain our trade routes and police our fishing grounds, would seem to be common sense.
`In the wake of the 11 September atrocities in the United States a commitment to take the fight to the terrorists must also be included.
`And yet as these tasks place ever increasing demands on an already stretched Fleet, the RN, already cut to the bone, continues to see ships axed from the frontline fleet.'
CURRENT OPERATIONS
THE Royal Navy currently has ships deployed to all `four corners' of the globe. But the role of the Navy in the current war against terrorism raises many concerns about susceptability to attack from small craft. The attack on the USS Cole in Aden followed by the attack on the French supertanker Limburg in the same area must raise many questions for world leaders.
Says Mike: `Will these fanatics be driving their small plastic boats filled with explosives into a cruise liner for their next headline-grabbing attack?
`Understandably, the British Seamen in the NUMAST union had their leaders calling on Foreign Office and MoD officials asking for more protection.'
Throughout the year the ships of the Atlantic Patrol Ship (North) have been enjoying tremendous success in the war against drugs in the Caribbean.
HMS Grafton made a third seizure, removing drugs from the dealers with an estimated street value of Ł3million, when her previous seizure saw the interception of Ł75million worth of cocaine.
Critchley accepts that these operations are well-suited to the Navy. But, he says: `It is, perhaps, time that consideration was given to procurement of vessels more suited to this type of surveillance and intercept mission. The requirement for expensive and sophisticated, equipped frigates to conduct these tasks must be questionable.'
The crew of the ill-fated destroyer HMS Nottingham earn Mike's high praise `for their finest hour.'
He says: `Perhaps it wasn't evident until the vessel was lifted clear of the water - but that crew put into action years of damage control training and fought relentlessly to save their ship.
`One look at the damage to the hull revealed just how close she had come to sinking. With major compartments breached, water coming in through massive rents in the hull, no power, no communications and no lighting, the crew won the battle to stem the flow of water and over the ensuing days secured their ship.
`It is a tragedy that the Press chose to seek ridicule and place blame. It is to be hoped that when the dust settles proper credit is paid to that crew who, as one, upheld the proudest traditions of the service.'
The State of the Fleet - Submarines
THE Vanguard refit facilities have been completed at Devonport and the first boat, HMS Vanguard arrived last February to begin her two-year refit.
The hunter-killer force was heavily tarnished by the reactor faults which resulted in suspension of operations in 2000. Last year, things were better with three submarines being involved in the opening attacks of the war against terror. But now, HMS Trafalgar is out of service having struck the seabed off the Isle of Skye, while HMS Sceptre and HM Sovereign have lain idle at Rosyth and Faslane respectively for over two years.
`The new Astute class is running 18 months behind schedule,' says Mike. `This means that unless one of the older S-class is run on beyond its announced decommissioning date, the submarine force is going to have to run a reduced number of boats for several years.'
Carriers
IT has been a mixed year for aircraft carriers. The refit cycle has meant that at the end of the month only one carrier, HMS Ark Royal, was available for operations. On the bright side, the Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the future carrier programme by selecting the Joint Strike Fighter as its next carrier-borne aircraft.
But Critchley warns: `The excitement following the announcement must be tempered by the fact that the selected aircraft is the STOVL version, and that the two carriers are to be built with ski-jumps rather than catapults and arrestor wires.
`It is hard to see the thinking behind this selection process. These huge vessels, big enough to operate any current fixed wing naval fighter, will be restricted to STOVL operations.'
Amphibious Vessels
WITHOUT doubt, says Mike Critchley, the flavour of the moment is `Amphibiosity.' Modernisation is on the horizon, with HMS Ocean now the Navy's only available amphibious asset.
`Herself overworked, she has spent the latter half of the year in drydock while modifications and repairs (believed to have cost Ł5.5million) are undertaken. `Delayed yet again, HMS Albion is not now scheduled to enter service until July, which would put her availability for operations around six months later.
`She is scheduled to be joined by her sistership, HMS Bulwark, at the year's end.'
The elderly `Sir' class are also to be replaced by four ships of the Bay class which are much larger and more capable than their predecessors.
ESCORTS
WARNS Mike Critchley: `It is here that the most concern must rest.'
Already painfully overstretched and operating some ships well past their prime, the destroyer and frigate force continues to suffer from `salami slicing' cuts, he says.
`Following rumours of more large-scale cuts to the escort force, to fund the future carriers, HMS Sheffield was paid off early.
`The reasoning behind this reduction below the agreed minimum of 32 escorts, was accredited to new refit cycles.
`By extending the period between Type 23 refits from nine to ten years it was assessed that the Royal Navy could lose a frigate and still field the 26 operational vessels as stipulated.
`The quite unbelievable aspect of this is that it was done at the same time as HMS Nottingham was severely damaged on the other side of the world and obviously out of action for a very long time.
`How can the Government reconcile paying off a frigate whilst at the same time knowing that a destroyer is going to be out of action for many months, possibly years, outside of the normal refit cycle?' he asks.
A further argument for paying off HMS Sheffield was the saving of Ł20million operating costs but to date, it has cost almost Ł20million to bring HMS Nottingham back to the UK to be surveyed.
Warns Critchley: `There is no slack in the escort force - no reserve ships to call on should a ship be unexpectedly put out of operation.'
To pile misery upon misery a cross-channel ferry hit St Albans recently, causing considerable damage to the superstructure. A brand new frigate, she has now been withdrawn from operations, well outside of her scheduled refit cycle.
`With no new escort tonnage being available until 2007, the Navy cannot afford to lose another escort,' he says.
`Persistent reports in the Press of massive cuts and interest in Type 22 and Type 23 frigates from foreign navies does nothing to dispel that feeling that the Treasury are trying to sell off the family silver.'
MINOR VESSELS
THE role of the minehunter has been reduced in recent years. Says Mike Critchley: `Whilst it could be argued that there is not really a credible mine threat at present, it doesn't take much imagination to see the chaos that could be wrought by a terror organisation wishing to inflict serious disruption to the country.
`A couple of years ago Britain was almost brought to its knees by a few motivated people picketing fuel depots ashore.
`Imagine the consequences if a terrorist organisation placed, or even intimated that they had placed, mines around a handful of our most strategically important ports.'
Because of that, Critchley says that it is `amazing' to find a relatively new ship, HMS Cromer, paid off and relegated to an alongside role as a floating classroom at Dartmouth during the year and, seemingly, a sister ship, HMS Bridport, heading for a similar fate.
At the start of the New Year, the first of three new fishery protection vessels should be in service. Eventually three vessels (owned by Vosper Thornycroft and leased to the MoD) will have replaced the original seven `deep sea' vessels of the Fishery Protection Service.
Says Mike Critchley: `Although advertised as being more capable than the vessels that they replace, three vessels cannot be in seven places at one time.'
And he hints at a hidden agenda which will strike fear into the fishing industry, when he says: `These vessels are also to be operated on a five-year public finance initiative.
`The whole subject of fishery protection is one of a once important task being rapidly downsized (and eventually quietly forgotten?) as the country is forced into a new future within Europe.
`After five years, no doubt we will see these vessels operating with a new role and "our" fish available for anyone to plunder.
New tonnage has started to arrive to give the Survey Squadron a reprieve from its highly rundown state. A wartime role for these vessels seems to have given the whole of the Hydrographic Branch - linked to the Hydrographic Office at Admiralty Way, Taunton - a reprieve from possible extinction.
SEA HARRIER
MIKE Critchley considers that the decision to pay-off the Sea Harrier in 2004 was the biggest body blow which the Royal Navy had to take during the year. `Inevitably their demise will put ships in unnecessary danger if an expeditionary force is to be deployed any distance away from shores - where friendly shore based fighter cover is available,' he said.
`It is a decision that should be hotly-contested and reversed before time, and personnel, run out. `Despite its shortcomings in extremely hot climates, the capability of the Sea Harrier has been praised extensively by senior officers and it seems this obviously Treasury-inspired cut is, indeed, a cut too far and should be fought vigorously if any meaningful RN task group is to be deployable worldwide.'
And he added: `Even though the demise of the Sea Harrier and the advent of its replacement may only be a relative few years away, the loss of junior Sea Harrier pilots will be one extremely difficult to remedy when the Joint Strike Fighter starts to become available.
`The loss of experienced fixed wing pilots and the training of their replacements is a major cause for concern, even if the establishment of 727 NAS to offer free flying lessons, at Plymouth Airport, to potential recruits, is a step in the right direction.'
CASUALTY SHIPS
AN answer to a question in the House of Commons in the autumn revealed that the Primary Casualty Receiving Ship project was not proceeding to plan, and that the building of the two promised ships was being put back until `the end of the decade.'
Observes Mike Critchley: `The goalposts appear to be moving - the size and capability has been downgraded - and the whole project has taken a lower priority as the year ticked by, coupled with the problems throughout the Defence Medical Services, where cuts made a few years ago have been acknowledged as being too severe.'
He believes that there is a requirement for a whole new hospital to be resurrected for totally tri-service use.
Many of the staff allocated to NHS hospitals in Plymouth under the current system as being redeployable - frequently at short notice - create a major problem for the NHS,as happened last week.
Argues Critchley: `Surely there is scope for one of these hospitals to be built within the hull of something of supertanker size that can spend 95 per cent of its time alongside, but is readily and easily deployable should an appropriate situation arise.'
THE FUTURE
MIKE critchley clearly believes that there is a future for the Royal Navy; that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
But he realises that, at present, it is only `when looking through the Government-supplied rose coloured glasses' that the service appears in good shape.
`There is a vast re-equipment programme underway,' acknowledges Critchley.
`Amphibious forces are at last due to get much improved vessels and increased sealift; the Fleet Air Arm are to get supersonic fixed wing aircraft to operate from two new super carriers; new large state-of-the-art air defence destroyers have been ordered and a new class of nuclear-powered submarines are under construction.
`But let's not lose sight of the fact that this capability will not be fully available for, perhaps, five or ten years.
`In the meantime, the Navy must soldier on with old and out-of-date tonnage; in some areas capability will continue to be withdrawn before new equipment arrives to replace it.
`The Navy has lost a lot of good ships to pay for this new future. Whilst it struggles on to bridge the gap between old and worn-out ships, and promised new capability, rumours continue of more cuts to come.
`The RN cannot truly remain a credible force if the Government continues to "salami slice" what remains of the active fleet during these crucial "gap years" before the promised new tonnage arrives,' he warns.
THE AUTHOR AND HIS COMPANY
BORN and bred in a heartland of the Royal Navy, Gosport, Mike Critchley entered the service at Dartmouth in 1963. During then years as a Seaman Officer, he served in a number of ships and was the commander of an inshore minesweeper during the Torrey Canyon emergency of 1967.
He left the Navy in 1974 to pursue a career in journalism and was once press officer to Prince Charles.
After two successful books - written in his spare time when he was harbourmaster at Looe (1978-80) - he became a full-time writer and broadcaster on Naval affairs and set up Maritime Books which also publishes the bi-monthly magazine, Warship World.
See also this story from Navy News:
The First Sea Lord on defending against the seaborne terrorist threat
You may have point about nukes, but carriers, MBTs and Fast Jets have all been used in recent operation, including several wars and various peace support operations.
As Biggus says, the Japanese MSDF is, in reality, a major blue water fleet. I thought they they were considering acquiring a carrier with AV8B(+)s - maybe ORAC or Archemedes can confirm this....
As for carriers being offensive - well I won't mention maritime air defence (here anyway) but there is no black and white dividing line between defensive and offensive systems.
As regards the publicity over the Sea Harrier, you are probably right however.
Back to my single service advocacy
The following was an article early last year in a Cornish(?) newspaper called the Sunday Independant. I expect similar pieces could be written on the other services too:
MIKE Critchley wrote his first British Warships and Auxiliaries guide in 1979. Since then, 16 editions of the Royal Navy 'Bible' have appeared but each time, the role of the Senior Service has been eroded in some way. The latest edition is published this week and while the former active serviceman remains richly proud of the Royal Navy, he is fearful of the future, as JOHN COLLINGS discovered
MIKE Critchley's analogy between the UK's ailing Health Service and what was once the country's Senior Service won't be lost on his peers.
`Were I a doctor, I might diagnose the "patient" as critical,' says the Cornish author and doyen of Naval publications.
`But given the correct treatment, the prognosis could be fine - however, the next five years are going to be decisive.'
Since leaving the Navy, Mike has seen his Liskeard-based Maritime Books cottage industry flourish. Sadly, he can't say the same about the service of which he was once so proud to be a part.
His handbook guide to the ships of our fleet is so detailed, from pennant numbers to dimensions, complements and even builder's details, that it has become the `Bible' for those in authority as much as members of the general public who might almost regard it as an adult's `I Spy' as they look out over the Hamoaze at Torpoint or Plymouth Sound.
But his latest tome carries a health warning which Whitehall will only ignore at the peril of putting its citizens at risk in an age of heightened terrorist activity and at a time when servicemen from the Army, Royal Air Force and the Navy have been enjoying quality time with their families in the West Country; many of them openly saying that they expect the order for a war on Iraq to be given as early as this week.
Critchley says that the Senior Service remains as professional as ever and will respond to all the demands placed on it with its usual `can do' attitude.
But he warns that the Government must stop `salami slicing' of what remains of the fleet: `There will be a time, in the not too distant future, when it (the Navy) will have to put up its hands and say "Stop!"'
In a wide-reaching examination of the service's capabilities, Critchley questions what would happen if fanatics drove small plastic boats filled with explosives into a cruise liner; expresses concern that the new Astute submarine class is 18 months behind schedule; queries whether, on the eve of a potential war, the UK should only have one carrier in active service and advances the thought that, in the case of destroyers and frigates, the Treasury is selling off the family silver.
He attacks Press mocking of the grounding of HMS Nottingham off the Australian coast earlier this year, predicting that history will show how the crew fought relentlessly to save their ship and should be feted, not laughed at.
And, in a final ground-breaking move, he puts the case for a floating hospital which can spend 95 per cent of its time alongside but is readily and easily deployable should a situation arise.
`The RN cannot truly remain a credible force if the Government continues to "salami slice" what remains of the active fleet during the crucial "gap years" before promised new tonnage (ships) arrive,' he warns.
THE ROLE OF WATER
SEAS cover 70.8 per cent of the world's surface, and two thirds of the world's population live within 100 miles of the coast. More than 150 of the 185 member states of the UN are coastal states. Britain has a world-wide expatriate community of over 10million and UK citizens make 34million journeys abroad each year.
The UK is the world's sixth largest trading nation exporting a higher percentage of its Gross Domestic Product than France, Germany, USA and Japan.
We export more than a quarter of everything we produce, of which almost 95 per cent by weight (Some Ł250billion of our trade) is transported by sea.
The UK merchant shipping sector is still increasing. The fleet is the 13th largest in the world and second in the EU after Greece. There are some 27,000 British merchant seafarers.
The UK has 10,500 miles of coastline and in an average year RN aircraft expect to conduct over 500 search and rescue operations.
The UK has an Economic Fishing Zone of 270,383 square miles (three times the land area of the UK). Under the Defra contract, the Fishery Protection Squadron was required to conduct 950 patrol days in the last two years.
Says Mike Critchley: `Against such a background, the need for a modern, flexible and strong Royal Navy to preserve our interests, protect our seafarers, maintain our trade routes and police our fishing grounds, would seem to be common sense.
`In the wake of the 11 September atrocities in the United States a commitment to take the fight to the terrorists must also be included.
`And yet as these tasks place ever increasing demands on an already stretched Fleet, the RN, already cut to the bone, continues to see ships axed from the frontline fleet.'
CURRENT OPERATIONS
THE Royal Navy currently has ships deployed to all `four corners' of the globe. But the role of the Navy in the current war against terrorism raises many concerns about susceptability to attack from small craft. The attack on the USS Cole in Aden followed by the attack on the French supertanker Limburg in the same area must raise many questions for world leaders.
Says Mike: `Will these fanatics be driving their small plastic boats filled with explosives into a cruise liner for their next headline-grabbing attack?
`Understandably, the British Seamen in the NUMAST union had their leaders calling on Foreign Office and MoD officials asking for more protection.'
Throughout the year the ships of the Atlantic Patrol Ship (North) have been enjoying tremendous success in the war against drugs in the Caribbean.
HMS Grafton made a third seizure, removing drugs from the dealers with an estimated street value of Ł3million, when her previous seizure saw the interception of Ł75million worth of cocaine.
Critchley accepts that these operations are well-suited to the Navy. But, he says: `It is, perhaps, time that consideration was given to procurement of vessels more suited to this type of surveillance and intercept mission. The requirement for expensive and sophisticated, equipped frigates to conduct these tasks must be questionable.'
The crew of the ill-fated destroyer HMS Nottingham earn Mike's high praise `for their finest hour.'
He says: `Perhaps it wasn't evident until the vessel was lifted clear of the water - but that crew put into action years of damage control training and fought relentlessly to save their ship.
`One look at the damage to the hull revealed just how close she had come to sinking. With major compartments breached, water coming in through massive rents in the hull, no power, no communications and no lighting, the crew won the battle to stem the flow of water and over the ensuing days secured their ship.
`It is a tragedy that the Press chose to seek ridicule and place blame. It is to be hoped that when the dust settles proper credit is paid to that crew who, as one, upheld the proudest traditions of the service.'
The State of the Fleet - Submarines
THE Vanguard refit facilities have been completed at Devonport and the first boat, HMS Vanguard arrived last February to begin her two-year refit.
The hunter-killer force was heavily tarnished by the reactor faults which resulted in suspension of operations in 2000. Last year, things were better with three submarines being involved in the opening attacks of the war against terror. But now, HMS Trafalgar is out of service having struck the seabed off the Isle of Skye, while HMS Sceptre and HM Sovereign have lain idle at Rosyth and Faslane respectively for over two years.
`The new Astute class is running 18 months behind schedule,' says Mike. `This means that unless one of the older S-class is run on beyond its announced decommissioning date, the submarine force is going to have to run a reduced number of boats for several years.'
Carriers
IT has been a mixed year for aircraft carriers. The refit cycle has meant that at the end of the month only one carrier, HMS Ark Royal, was available for operations. On the bright side, the Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the future carrier programme by selecting the Joint Strike Fighter as its next carrier-borne aircraft.
But Critchley warns: `The excitement following the announcement must be tempered by the fact that the selected aircraft is the STOVL version, and that the two carriers are to be built with ski-jumps rather than catapults and arrestor wires.
`It is hard to see the thinking behind this selection process. These huge vessels, big enough to operate any current fixed wing naval fighter, will be restricted to STOVL operations.'
Amphibious Vessels
WITHOUT doubt, says Mike Critchley, the flavour of the moment is `Amphibiosity.' Modernisation is on the horizon, with HMS Ocean now the Navy's only available amphibious asset.
`Herself overworked, she has spent the latter half of the year in drydock while modifications and repairs (believed to have cost Ł5.5million) are undertaken. `Delayed yet again, HMS Albion is not now scheduled to enter service until July, which would put her availability for operations around six months later.
`She is scheduled to be joined by her sistership, HMS Bulwark, at the year's end.'
The elderly `Sir' class are also to be replaced by four ships of the Bay class which are much larger and more capable than their predecessors.
ESCORTS
WARNS Mike Critchley: `It is here that the most concern must rest.'
Already painfully overstretched and operating some ships well past their prime, the destroyer and frigate force continues to suffer from `salami slicing' cuts, he says.
`Following rumours of more large-scale cuts to the escort force, to fund the future carriers, HMS Sheffield was paid off early.
`The reasoning behind this reduction below the agreed minimum of 32 escorts, was accredited to new refit cycles.
`By extending the period between Type 23 refits from nine to ten years it was assessed that the Royal Navy could lose a frigate and still field the 26 operational vessels as stipulated.
`The quite unbelievable aspect of this is that it was done at the same time as HMS Nottingham was severely damaged on the other side of the world and obviously out of action for a very long time.
`How can the Government reconcile paying off a frigate whilst at the same time knowing that a destroyer is going to be out of action for many months, possibly years, outside of the normal refit cycle?' he asks.
A further argument for paying off HMS Sheffield was the saving of Ł20million operating costs but to date, it has cost almost Ł20million to bring HMS Nottingham back to the UK to be surveyed.
Warns Critchley: `There is no slack in the escort force - no reserve ships to call on should a ship be unexpectedly put out of operation.'
To pile misery upon misery a cross-channel ferry hit St Albans recently, causing considerable damage to the superstructure. A brand new frigate, she has now been withdrawn from operations, well outside of her scheduled refit cycle.
`With no new escort tonnage being available until 2007, the Navy cannot afford to lose another escort,' he says.
`Persistent reports in the Press of massive cuts and interest in Type 22 and Type 23 frigates from foreign navies does nothing to dispel that feeling that the Treasury are trying to sell off the family silver.'
MINOR VESSELS
THE role of the minehunter has been reduced in recent years. Says Mike Critchley: `Whilst it could be argued that there is not really a credible mine threat at present, it doesn't take much imagination to see the chaos that could be wrought by a terror organisation wishing to inflict serious disruption to the country.
`A couple of years ago Britain was almost brought to its knees by a few motivated people picketing fuel depots ashore.
`Imagine the consequences if a terrorist organisation placed, or even intimated that they had placed, mines around a handful of our most strategically important ports.'
Because of that, Critchley says that it is `amazing' to find a relatively new ship, HMS Cromer, paid off and relegated to an alongside role as a floating classroom at Dartmouth during the year and, seemingly, a sister ship, HMS Bridport, heading for a similar fate.
At the start of the New Year, the first of three new fishery protection vessels should be in service. Eventually three vessels (owned by Vosper Thornycroft and leased to the MoD) will have replaced the original seven `deep sea' vessels of the Fishery Protection Service.
Says Mike Critchley: `Although advertised as being more capable than the vessels that they replace, three vessels cannot be in seven places at one time.'
And he hints at a hidden agenda which will strike fear into the fishing industry, when he says: `These vessels are also to be operated on a five-year public finance initiative.
`The whole subject of fishery protection is one of a once important task being rapidly downsized (and eventually quietly forgotten?) as the country is forced into a new future within Europe.
`After five years, no doubt we will see these vessels operating with a new role and "our" fish available for anyone to plunder.
New tonnage has started to arrive to give the Survey Squadron a reprieve from its highly rundown state. A wartime role for these vessels seems to have given the whole of the Hydrographic Branch - linked to the Hydrographic Office at Admiralty Way, Taunton - a reprieve from possible extinction.
SEA HARRIER
MIKE Critchley considers that the decision to pay-off the Sea Harrier in 2004 was the biggest body blow which the Royal Navy had to take during the year. `Inevitably their demise will put ships in unnecessary danger if an expeditionary force is to be deployed any distance away from shores - where friendly shore based fighter cover is available,' he said.
`It is a decision that should be hotly-contested and reversed before time, and personnel, run out. `Despite its shortcomings in extremely hot climates, the capability of the Sea Harrier has been praised extensively by senior officers and it seems this obviously Treasury-inspired cut is, indeed, a cut too far and should be fought vigorously if any meaningful RN task group is to be deployable worldwide.'
And he added: `Even though the demise of the Sea Harrier and the advent of its replacement may only be a relative few years away, the loss of junior Sea Harrier pilots will be one extremely difficult to remedy when the Joint Strike Fighter starts to become available.
`The loss of experienced fixed wing pilots and the training of their replacements is a major cause for concern, even if the establishment of 727 NAS to offer free flying lessons, at Plymouth Airport, to potential recruits, is a step in the right direction.'
CASUALTY SHIPS
AN answer to a question in the House of Commons in the autumn revealed that the Primary Casualty Receiving Ship project was not proceeding to plan, and that the building of the two promised ships was being put back until `the end of the decade.'
Observes Mike Critchley: `The goalposts appear to be moving - the size and capability has been downgraded - and the whole project has taken a lower priority as the year ticked by, coupled with the problems throughout the Defence Medical Services, where cuts made a few years ago have been acknowledged as being too severe.'
He believes that there is a requirement for a whole new hospital to be resurrected for totally tri-service use.
Many of the staff allocated to NHS hospitals in Plymouth under the current system as being redeployable - frequently at short notice - create a major problem for the NHS,as happened last week.
Argues Critchley: `Surely there is scope for one of these hospitals to be built within the hull of something of supertanker size that can spend 95 per cent of its time alongside, but is readily and easily deployable should an appropriate situation arise.'
THE FUTURE
MIKE critchley clearly believes that there is a future for the Royal Navy; that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
But he realises that, at present, it is only `when looking through the Government-supplied rose coloured glasses' that the service appears in good shape.
`There is a vast re-equipment programme underway,' acknowledges Critchley.
`Amphibious forces are at last due to get much improved vessels and increased sealift; the Fleet Air Arm are to get supersonic fixed wing aircraft to operate from two new super carriers; new large state-of-the-art air defence destroyers have been ordered and a new class of nuclear-powered submarines are under construction.
`But let's not lose sight of the fact that this capability will not be fully available for, perhaps, five or ten years.
`In the meantime, the Navy must soldier on with old and out-of-date tonnage; in some areas capability will continue to be withdrawn before new equipment arrives to replace it.
`The Navy has lost a lot of good ships to pay for this new future. Whilst it struggles on to bridge the gap between old and worn-out ships, and promised new capability, rumours continue of more cuts to come.
`The RN cannot truly remain a credible force if the Government continues to "salami slice" what remains of the active fleet during these crucial "gap years" before the promised new tonnage arrives,' he warns.
THE AUTHOR AND HIS COMPANY
BORN and bred in a heartland of the Royal Navy, Gosport, Mike Critchley entered the service at Dartmouth in 1963. During then years as a Seaman Officer, he served in a number of ships and was the commander of an inshore minesweeper during the Torrey Canyon emergency of 1967.
He left the Navy in 1974 to pursue a career in journalism and was once press officer to Prince Charles.
After two successful books - written in his spare time when he was harbourmaster at Looe (1978-80) - he became a full-time writer and broadcaster on Naval affairs and set up Maritime Books which also publishes the bi-monthly magazine, Warship World.
See also this story from Navy News:
The First Sea Lord on defending against the seaborne terrorist threat
BHR
First of all if you bothered to read my thread, before throwing your teddy bear out of the cot, you will see that I stated that I did not necessarily disagree with the basic thrust of your arguement. It was your use of Japan as an example that I thought unwise. You stated:
"...Germany, Canada and Japan. If you look at these three countries and then look at the more costly line items in the defence budget of the UK it is difficult to justify the expenditure. Neither of these three countries has any carriers nor any plans for them in the future. None of these countries has a nuclear deterrent or any known plans to acquire one. In the cases of Germany and Japan both of these countries are heavily reliant on oil from the Middle East yet they do not seem to have the same need for massive navies."
I tried to point out that Japan does indeed have many of the more expensive/costly items in a traditional type defence budget, AD fighters, AWACS, tankers, MPA, a modern navy, etc. I discussed why carriers weren't even an option for the Japanese for historic reasons (which does not mean they do not want them). I didn't even mention before that both Germany and Japan would never consider going near nuclear weapons, whether they wanted them or not, for exactly the same historic reasons! I tried to point out that Japan does indeed have a fairly massive navy. As for the point about the Japanese navy routinely operating a long way from home (ROUTINELY - not a one off global visit like the Irish jolly you mentioned), I was trying to point out it is a major 'blue water' navy, not a coastal defence outfit!!
I didn't attack the basic premise of your arguement, if you can't take some simple criticism you aren't going to win many people over to your way of thinking!!
Nuff said
First of all if you bothered to read my thread, before throwing your teddy bear out of the cot, you will see that I stated that I did not necessarily disagree with the basic thrust of your arguement. It was your use of Japan as an example that I thought unwise. You stated:
"...Germany, Canada and Japan. If you look at these three countries and then look at the more costly line items in the defence budget of the UK it is difficult to justify the expenditure. Neither of these three countries has any carriers nor any plans for them in the future. None of these countries has a nuclear deterrent or any known plans to acquire one. In the cases of Germany and Japan both of these countries are heavily reliant on oil from the Middle East yet they do not seem to have the same need for massive navies."
I tried to point out that Japan does indeed have many of the more expensive/costly items in a traditional type defence budget, AD fighters, AWACS, tankers, MPA, a modern navy, etc. I discussed why carriers weren't even an option for the Japanese for historic reasons (which does not mean they do not want them). I didn't even mention before that both Germany and Japan would never consider going near nuclear weapons, whether they wanted them or not, for exactly the same historic reasons! I tried to point out that Japan does indeed have a fairly massive navy. As for the point about the Japanese navy routinely operating a long way from home (ROUTINELY - not a one off global visit like the Irish jolly you mentioned), I was trying to point out it is a major 'blue water' navy, not a coastal defence outfit!!
I didn't attack the basic premise of your arguement, if you can't take some simple criticism you aren't going to win many people over to your way of thinking!!
Nuff said
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus,
“before throwing your teddy bear out of the cot”
At no time did my teddy leave my cot. Unlike your own apparently.
“I didn't attack the basic premise of your arguement,
I was quite aware that you did not attack “the basic premise” of my argument being the “reader” that I am. My reply was simply to give you some more information on my thinking. The quip about the Irish Navy was meant in jest but since I now see you have no sense of humour I will refrain in the future.
As to “if you can't take some simple criticism” !”, the funny thing here is that I am quite capable of taking criticism, simple or otherwise. Furthermore I do not post so that I can “win many people over to your way of thinking”. I leave that for people like yourself. I do not require the validation of others that you find so important.
I posted on this thread to add my opinions to the rest. I am quite willing to discuss any of these issues but I am not looking to convert anyone.
Cheers
BHR
“before throwing your teddy bear out of the cot”
At no time did my teddy leave my cot. Unlike your own apparently.
“I didn't attack the basic premise of your arguement,
I was quite aware that you did not attack “the basic premise” of my argument being the “reader” that I am. My reply was simply to give you some more information on my thinking. The quip about the Irish Navy was meant in jest but since I now see you have no sense of humour I will refrain in the future.
As to “if you can't take some simple criticism” !”, the funny thing here is that I am quite capable of taking criticism, simple or otherwise. Furthermore I do not post so that I can “win many people over to your way of thinking”. I leave that for people like yourself. I do not require the validation of others that you find so important.
I posted on this thread to add my opinions to the rest. I am quite willing to discuss any of these issues but I am not looking to convert anyone.
Cheers
BHR
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031222-122617-5344r.htm
In fact Japan is more than capable of arming herself with nuclear weapons, and in recent years, in the light of perceived threats from North Korea and China, has considered doing so, and the debate goes on even as we proone.
Japanese Naval vessels regularly visit here. I have no idea how much further they regularly go.
In fact Japan is more than capable of arming herself with nuclear weapons, and in recent years, in the light of perceived threats from North Korea and China, has considered doing so, and the debate goes on even as we proone.
Japanese Naval vessels regularly visit here. I have no idea how much further they regularly go.
From Sky News ( http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...015360,00.html )
IRAQ: WE COULD HAVE LOST
British soldiers could have lost the war in Iraq if they'd faced a more capable enemy.
That is one of the findings in a major report by MPs.
It says troops were left vulnerable to chemical attack because of a shortage of kit.
Although it says the overall military operation was a success, the report - called Learning the Lessons of Iraq - said there were "serious shortcomings" in the supply and distribution of vital equipment to protect against chemical attack.
And the Commons Defence Committee highlighted a series of critical failings in the military supply chain which meant that vital kit - including ammunition, machine guns, body armour and desert clothing - did not reach the troops in time.
The report is published on the eve of the first anniversary of the invasion.
Overall, it says the operation had placed demands on the Armed Forces which were "very close to the maximum they could sustain".
The committee said troops had been left without sufficient supplies of chemical detectors and protective clothing. They were given only one protective suit, even though "ideally" they should have four.
It suggested that if Saddam had used chemical weapons on the scale he did in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the British forces would have been unable to cope.
"There were serious shortcomings in the supply and distribution system and the required levels of detection and protection were not always available to everyone," the report said.
IRAQ: WE COULD HAVE LOST
British soldiers could have lost the war in Iraq if they'd faced a more capable enemy.
That is one of the findings in a major report by MPs.
It says troops were left vulnerable to chemical attack because of a shortage of kit.
Although it says the overall military operation was a success, the report - called Learning the Lessons of Iraq - said there were "serious shortcomings" in the supply and distribution of vital equipment to protect against chemical attack.
And the Commons Defence Committee highlighted a series of critical failings in the military supply chain which meant that vital kit - including ammunition, machine guns, body armour and desert clothing - did not reach the troops in time.
The report is published on the eve of the first anniversary of the invasion.
Overall, it says the operation had placed demands on the Armed Forces which were "very close to the maximum they could sustain".
The committee said troops had been left without sufficient supplies of chemical detectors and protective clothing. They were given only one protective suit, even though "ideally" they should have four.
It suggested that if Saddam had used chemical weapons on the scale he did in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the British forces would have been unable to cope.
"There were serious shortcomings in the supply and distribution system and the required levels of detection and protection were not always available to everyone," the report said.
That can't be true.
The nice Mr Hoon told the House of Commons that the troops were properly equipped and that there were no problems. And as we know, he'd never lie to the House of Commons, since he'd have to resign.
The nice Mr Hoon told the House of Commons that the troops were properly equipped and that there were no problems. And as we know, he'd never lie to the House of Commons, since he'd have to resign.
Thread Starter
Disgraceful
Today, the deployment of extra troops to Iraq was announced in Parliament. One of the units being sent was out there during the combat phase of Telic.
Being sent back, for a second time in a short space of time, is a real kick in the teeth for them and their families. It raises the issue of the Army being so small that the same unit is needed,and of overstretch.
But what really gets me is the way the wives/families found out. They found out when the deployment was announced in parliament.....
I expect that good ole Geoff Hoon will go on holiday now - he usually does.
Being sent back, for a second time in a short space of time, is a real kick in the teeth for them and their families. It raises the issue of the Army being so small that the same unit is needed,and of overstretch.
But what really gets me is the way the wives/families found out. They found out when the deployment was announced in parliament.....
I expect that good ole Geoff Hoon will go on holiday now - he usually does.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 28th May 2004 at 12:58.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army blasts Blair
Army blasts Blair for delaying fresh Iraq deployment
By Sean Rayment Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 30/05/2004)
Tony Blair's decision to postpone the announcement of crucial troop reinforcements for Iraq until after the local and European elections has infuriated defence chiefs.
Senior officers believe that the decision to delay deployment plans could have serious consequences for the 8,700 British troops in Iraq.
Defence chiefs have called for 4,000 more troops
They fear the delay will be seen by insurgents as a sign of weakness and will encourage more attacks on troops.
"The Government can't fight the war as though it were taking place in Surrey," said one senior officer, accusing ministers of risking the lives of troops for short-term political advantage. "We have to be bold, strong and decisive."
He continued: "Military strategy has become subservient to political expediency. We want to get on with the task [of reinforcement], but we're being held back for political reasons - namely [next week's] elections. The assumption is that the electorate will launch a protest vote because of growing disenchantment with the crisis in Iraq.
"Security in southern Iraq is deteriorating daily. The enemy is becoming more confident and using a wider range of weapons. The prognosis is not good."
Defence chiefs have been pressing No 10 for 4,000 more troops to be sent in a move that would see the whole of southern Iraq come under the control of the British-dominated Nato Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps.
Last week, however, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, told MPs that only a token force of 200 armoured infantry troops and 170 engineers was being sent.
Ian Gibson, the Labour chairman of the Commons science and technology select committee, said he thought plans for large-scale reinforcements were being kept in ministers' "bottom drawers". "This would be a very difficult time politically to send more troops, given the unpopularity of the war and its aftermath," he said.
By Sean Rayment Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 30/05/2004)
Tony Blair's decision to postpone the announcement of crucial troop reinforcements for Iraq until after the local and European elections has infuriated defence chiefs.
Senior officers believe that the decision to delay deployment plans could have serious consequences for the 8,700 British troops in Iraq.
Defence chiefs have called for 4,000 more troops
They fear the delay will be seen by insurgents as a sign of weakness and will encourage more attacks on troops.
"The Government can't fight the war as though it were taking place in Surrey," said one senior officer, accusing ministers of risking the lives of troops for short-term political advantage. "We have to be bold, strong and decisive."
He continued: "Military strategy has become subservient to political expediency. We want to get on with the task [of reinforcement], but we're being held back for political reasons - namely [next week's] elections. The assumption is that the electorate will launch a protest vote because of growing disenchantment with the crisis in Iraq.
"Security in southern Iraq is deteriorating daily. The enemy is becoming more confident and using a wider range of weapons. The prognosis is not good."
Defence chiefs have been pressing No 10 for 4,000 more troops to be sent in a move that would see the whole of southern Iraq come under the control of the British-dominated Nato Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps.
Last week, however, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, told MPs that only a token force of 200 armoured infantry troops and 170 engineers was being sent.
Ian Gibson, the Labour chairman of the Commons science and technology select committee, said he thought plans for large-scale reinforcements were being kept in ministers' "bottom drawers". "This would be a very difficult time politically to send more troops, given the unpopularity of the war and its aftermath," he said.
Thread Starter
An idea
A current advertsing campaign emphasises the fact that politics effects us all, both directly and indirectly.
The recent events in Saudi Arabia have led to speculation, which in turn has caused oil prices to rise. This gets passed on to the consumer. Surely this is proof positive than security issues effect us in our everyday lives.
In a crisis, being able to respond by deploying forces reduces uncertainty. Uncertainty is dangerous from any economic view. Thus not having forces to deploy will lead to higher oil prices, higher shipping insurance, and higher costs for both raw materials and manufactured goods that are imported. The costs of exports may may be adversely affected.
Current talk of protests over the cost of fuel underline how sensitive this issue is to the public.
For Joe Public, spending a little extra on defence may well be cheaper than paying higher prices for everything. Is is not time he was told?
The recent events in Saudi Arabia have led to speculation, which in turn has caused oil prices to rise. This gets passed on to the consumer. Surely this is proof positive than security issues effect us in our everyday lives.
In a crisis, being able to respond by deploying forces reduces uncertainty. Uncertainty is dangerous from any economic view. Thus not having forces to deploy will lead to higher oil prices, higher shipping insurance, and higher costs for both raw materials and manufactured goods that are imported. The costs of exports may may be adversely affected.
Current talk of protests over the cost of fuel underline how sensitive this issue is to the public.
For Joe Public, spending a little extra on defence may well be cheaper than paying higher prices for everything. Is is not time he was told?
WEBF,
Er...., I think you might find that the current "uncertainty" as you quaintly put it was actually CAUSED by us deploying forces in the first place.
Joe Public, by and large, feels that we shouldn't be out in Iraq right now and given a choice would withdraw our forces right away. Far from accepting higher defence expenditure I fear that the current mayhem will only cause the public to question further what we have military forces for and what we do with them.
Old fashioned thinking again matey.
Must stop watching this bloody Hells Kitchen.......................
Er...., I think you might find that the current "uncertainty" as you quaintly put it was actually CAUSED by us deploying forces in the first place.
Joe Public, by and large, feels that we shouldn't be out in Iraq right now and given a choice would withdraw our forces right away. Far from accepting higher defence expenditure I fear that the current mayhem will only cause the public to question further what we have military forces for and what we do with them.
Old fashioned thinking again matey.
Must stop watching this bloody Hells Kitchen.......................
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverance
You could not be more wrong old son, Joe Public doesn't care in the slightest about Iraq and want our forces out ASAp. Why? Because he doesn't want to be footing the bill for it!!
You could not be more wrong old son, Joe Public doesn't care in the slightest about Iraq and want our forces out ASAp. Why? Because he doesn't want to be footing the bill for it!!