Defence Committee 9th Report - Operations in Libya

[ORAC]

Defence Committee - Ninth Report - Operations in Libya (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/950/95002.htm)

[Ken Scott]

If we had instead deleted Tornado at the end of 2010, the first challenge for the residual Harrier force would have been to re-engage in Afghanistan. That being so, it would have been highly unlikely that it would have been available for the action in Libya. Even if it had, it would not have had the same fire power, as the First Sea Lord has observed.

A fair point.........!

[Melchett01]

But more to the point, who is Sqn Ldr R T Snare, RAF(Ret'd) FRAeS who - according to his letter of complaint / rant published in Vol 2 resigned his commission having been not promoted (passed over?)

He has some fairly relevant questions, but why is the HCDC accepting evidence from a retired and passed over sqn ldr ranting on current and future UK defence capabilities?

[Wrathmonk]

Melchett

who is Sqn Ldr R T Snare, RAF(Ret'd) FRAeS

Whilst there are a fair few PPRuNers that fit the profile you give ("passed over sqn ldr ranting on current and future UK defence capabilities" :E)you can read all about the real Mr Snare on his website (http://www.robertsnare.com/).

[Easy Street]

Did you spot "Admiral Sir John Woodward GBE KCB and colleagues" in the list of additional written evidence? "And colleagues" almost certainly includes good old Sharkey, so I imagine that his fictional costings of land-based air ops were seen by the committee (search for his blog if you don't know what I'm on about). I bet this explains why the committee were suspicious of the relatively low cost of ELLAMY as put forward by MOD, and why they seemed to be much more concerned about the carrier programme than did any of the witnesses (including 1SL) whose statements were actually included in the text itself!

[Lonewolf_50]

From the report summary:
17. We welcome the significant involvement of non-NATO countries, particularly those from the Arab League and Sweden, to operations in Libya. However, we are concerned to establish how the contributions of non-NATO countries fitted into the NATO command and control structures and call on the Government to clarify the command and control structures that were implemented and how they were coordinated. We also call on the Government to clarify how it ensured that any bilateral alliances between non-NATO countries and the National Transitional Council were monitored to ensure that they did not impact unfavourably on the NATO mission or were contrary to the measures in the UN Resolutions. An assessment of the integration of non-NATO countries should be a key part of the lessons learned exercises undertaken by NATO and the UK. (Paragraph 81)
Coalition operations, particularly Ad Hoc coatlition operations, are a real bugger.

The following seems to be a repeat of the old political problem of the 90's, which included a lot of noise about European Independent Defense Identity, Eurocorps, and WEU flotillas, and such other "do it without the Yanks" initiatives.

Followed yet again by defense budget cuts among NATO nations. :p

18. For the time being, there will still be a heavy reliance on US command and control functions for future operations. It should be a priority for NATO to examine this. However, whilst accepting the current economic climate and its implications for defence capabilities, we are concerned that future operations will not be possible if the US is not willing or able to provide capabilities such as unmanned aerial vehicles, intelligence and refuelling aircraft. It should be a priority for NATO to examine this over-reliance on US capabilities and assets. This challenge will be heightened by the US stated intention to shift its military, geographic and strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region. (Paragraph 90)

Paragraph 29 addressed a similar concern.

[Archimedes]

Did you spot "Admiral Sir John Woodward GBE KCB and colleagues" in the list of additional written evidence? "And colleagues" almost certainly includes good old Sharkey, so I imagine that his fictional costings of land-based air ops were seen by the committee (search for his blog if you don't know what I'm on about). I bet this explains why the committee were suspicious of the relatively low cost of ELLAMY as put forward by MOD, and why they seemed to be much more concerned about the carrier programme than did any of the witnesses (including 1SL) whose statements were actually included in the text itself!

If you open the link, you'll see a huge amount of material generated by the good Admiral and chums. It was sent in to the inquiry fairly early on, and certainly before all the witness sessions were complete.

It appears, though, that the committee has relegated it to online format only, which perhaps suggests that they didn't think it so vital that it appear as part of the published record...