And if any doubt his sense of neutrality here his is last effort to the Telegraph:
SIR – The possible areas to be cut as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (report, August 7) raise an important issue. The oft-stated position that our Armed Forces will have to work far more closely with allies than previously is the only basis available for assessing where cuts should be made. By this measure the proposed cuts are illogical, dangerous and bad for Britain and Europe.
In order for any increased defence interdependence to work, Britain must bring to its alliances capabilities that are in short supply; in this way we can have a smaller defence sector but still hope to be able to shape European and Nato policies as well as ensuring that the EU and Nato have credible conventional forces.
Many of the proposed cuts go against this. The European members of Nato are rich in army manpower and fast jets, but they are weak in maritime power and strategic airlift.
To propose cuts to the Royal Navy's seven-strong amphibious fleet, which contributes nearly 40 per cent of the European members of Nato's holding in these types, is idiotic, as is any suggestion of cuts to the specialised amphibious power projection force found in the Royal Marines and 3 Commando Brigade.
Furthermore, the Royal Navy's hunter-killer submarines represent 57 per cent of the EU SSN force and 100 per cent of Tomahawk cruise missile armed force available to the EU. To cut the number of such potent platforms with strategic reach, endurance, and armed with a weapon system that is a major political deterrent, defies belief and will weaken our voice in Europe.
If Britain persists in cutting the Royal Navy when all sense suggests that our navy should be enhanced in order to strengthen our hand in Europe and the world, both Britain and the EU will be weaker for it.
Dr Duncan Redford
Centre for Maritime Historical Studies
University of Exeter
There are many holes in his argument in his latest letter, not least that the RN is 'accruing harmony' while undertaking their training at sea and other routine business (cockers p somewhere sunny included) unlike the other services who spend a higher proportion of their lives training at their home bases (one of the reasons why many of us avoided the RN box at the CIO
). This undermines his argument about differences in time available for ops but I am actually more surprised at his naivety: if we increased harmony for the other services, losing many of us along the way to PVR, would that be more money for Defence elsewhere or just a windfall for the Treasury? I hope he was a better RNl officer than he is an amateur military planner!