Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks

[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.”