UK National Security advisor questioned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK National Security advisor questioned
Oral evidence - Modernising Defence Programme - 1 May 2018
Interesting - not sure if it has been posted or not eg
Mrs Moon: You could say that the aircraft carriers were a valid decision to project force, given the level of capability we had at the time, to use that projection effectively. The problem is that we now have the capacity to project force, but not a lot to back it up or even to protect it.It worries the Committee that we will have these two nice, new, shiny aircraft carriers with nothing to put on them and not a little gap in our capability to protect them. There seems to be a lack of financial, political and, quite honestly, strategic recognition of that gap, especially when we are told that the money that is there, if you play around with it a little more, will fill the gap. It will not. We are going to have to spend more to fill the gap.
Sir Mark Sedwill: With respect, I am sitting here rather relieved I am not the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence.
Chair: Why?
Sir Mark Sedwill: Because I know—some of this is probably more for Defence themselves. On the carriers, if I may just answer that point, we will be one of only about, I think, six countries in the world that have this kind of strategic projection capability, when the carriers are fully operational. But it is our intention, because of that, to use them with allies. It’s really important that we keep allies in play in our thinking here, so I would expect, particularly if they are in a contested deployment, that there would be allied capabilities—ships, aircraft, whatever—as part of those groups. We will see what happens in the circumstances, but that is part of the thinking about the use of the carriers. It’s projecting them as a British sovereign capability, but one that will almost inevitably—I would actually say “inevitably”—be used in the context of allied operations of some kind, if used in a contested environment.
Interesting - not sure if it has been posted or not eg
Mrs Moon: You could say that the aircraft carriers were a valid decision to project force, given the level of capability we had at the time, to use that projection effectively. The problem is that we now have the capacity to project force, but not a lot to back it up or even to protect it.It worries the Committee that we will have these two nice, new, shiny aircraft carriers with nothing to put on them and not a little gap in our capability to protect them. There seems to be a lack of financial, political and, quite honestly, strategic recognition of that gap, especially when we are told that the money that is there, if you play around with it a little more, will fill the gap. It will not. We are going to have to spend more to fill the gap.
Sir Mark Sedwill: With respect, I am sitting here rather relieved I am not the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence.
Chair: Why?
Sir Mark Sedwill: Because I know—some of this is probably more for Defence themselves. On the carriers, if I may just answer that point, we will be one of only about, I think, six countries in the world that have this kind of strategic projection capability, when the carriers are fully operational. But it is our intention, because of that, to use them with allies. It’s really important that we keep allies in play in our thinking here, so I would expect, particularly if they are in a contested deployment, that there would be allied capabilities—ships, aircraft, whatever—as part of those groups. We will see what happens in the circumstances, but that is part of the thinking about the use of the carriers. It’s projecting them as a British sovereign capability, but one that will almost inevitably—I would actually say “inevitably”—be used in the context of allied operations of some kind, if used in a contested environment.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It’s strategic incoherence, which is about the only thing we are really consistently good at these days. Rather than considering the carriers as items on their own, they should have been part of a fully integrated project that considered the carrier as the platform, the air assets as the delivery mechanism and the need for protection. If we have have considered these holistically, and I’m not convinced we have in any sense other than accidentally, I’ll be surprised. We certainly wouldn’t have had the cats & traps saga if we had, and we’re now tied into such an expensive platform that we can’t even man both carriers, will probably embark a small number of assets that numerically probably don’t need a carrier that size and we can’t protect it without stopping however many other task lines if it ever does get out of dock fully loaded.
But what I frankly find utterly baffling is the final statement that, in the context of BREXIT which is tying the country in knots to achieve full sovereign independence, we are spending billions on a capability that should in theory be a prime tool for exercising that sovereign independence, and yet we refuse to use it outside of the confines of an coalition - where it may actually even end up being under command of whomever is leading the coalition at the time.
You simply just just couldn’t make this stuff up. Can they even spell strategy in Whitehall let alone implement it effectively?
But what I frankly find utterly baffling is the final statement that, in the context of BREXIT which is tying the country in knots to achieve full sovereign independence, we are spending billions on a capability that should in theory be a prime tool for exercising that sovereign independence, and yet we refuse to use it outside of the confines of an coalition - where it may actually even end up being under command of whomever is leading the coalition at the time.
You simply just just couldn’t make this stuff up. Can they even spell strategy in Whitehall let alone implement it effectively?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually if you read the transcript it's pure Sir Humphrey - he's not really responsible, he can't possibly comment, the MoD leaks like a sieve (but he can't do anything about it) - in fact there is very little he can do ............. the decision to release the last major report the day after parliament went on holiday wasn't anything to do with him and he couldn't possibly comment on who might have been involved in such a decision......
it's awful..............
typically .:-
"Chair :- The problem that I have is that you are defending the size of the existing budget and you are admitting that threats arise unpredictably, yet you
are not, apparently, bothered by the fact that to meet the new threats, we are having to consider cutting capabilities that
were deemed necessary only a very few years ago to meet the previous threats—threats that have not necessarily gone
away or, if they have, could easily arise again. How do you respond to that?
Sir Mark Sedwill: I don’t want to comment on leaked documents, because, to be honest, there has been a great deal of
pretty inaccurate leaking in the press about all this over the last few months.
Q177 Chair: But do you accept that if we had operated within a fiscally neutral environment, there would have had to be
significant cuts in certain capabilities? Can you at least confirm that?
Sir Mark Sedwill: In a sense, I can’t, because this is not the area of my own expertise. What the Ministry of Defence is
doing is partly through the current programme—the Defence Secretary has made it clear that he does not accept any
propositions of that kind—but defence always has to look at rebalancing.
it's awful..............
typically .:-
"Chair :- The problem that I have is that you are defending the size of the existing budget and you are admitting that threats arise unpredictably, yet you
are not, apparently, bothered by the fact that to meet the new threats, we are having to consider cutting capabilities that
were deemed necessary only a very few years ago to meet the previous threats—threats that have not necessarily gone
away or, if they have, could easily arise again. How do you respond to that?
Sir Mark Sedwill: I don’t want to comment on leaked documents, because, to be honest, there has been a great deal of
pretty inaccurate leaking in the press about all this over the last few months.
Q177 Chair: But do you accept that if we had operated within a fiscally neutral environment, there would have had to be
significant cuts in certain capabilities? Can you at least confirm that?
Sir Mark Sedwill: In a sense, I can’t, because this is not the area of my own expertise. What the Ministry of Defence is
doing is partly through the current programme—the Defence Secretary has made it clear that he does not accept any
propositions of that kind—but defence always has to look at rebalancing.
Melchett
Why do you think that none of these things have been done? FCBA/FJCA (UK interest and involvement in F-35 started at pretty much the same time as time as CVF. Both QEC and the F-35B have been developed concurrently. If the Harrier had not got the axe in 2010, and maybe the Sea Harrier had not been axed in 2002, then maybe we would not have had the STOVL - CTOL - STOVL debacle. If Harrier was on service it would be going on HMS Queen Elizabeth's deck, but I imagine the usual suspects would complain about an old jet with a new carrier...
I thought it had been proved both carriers will be manned at the same time. The RN has the ships and personnel for task group operations - which in future will be carrier centred. Incidentally RN frigates and destroyers have experience of riding shotgun for US or French carriers and are fully capable of it.
I would not pay too much attention to Mrs Moon - "carriers without aircraft" indeed.
Why do you think that none of these things have been done? FCBA/FJCA (UK interest and involvement in F-35 started at pretty much the same time as time as CVF. Both QEC and the F-35B have been developed concurrently. If the Harrier had not got the axe in 2010, and maybe the Sea Harrier had not been axed in 2002, then maybe we would not have had the STOVL - CTOL - STOVL debacle. If Harrier was on service it would be going on HMS Queen Elizabeth's deck, but I imagine the usual suspects would complain about an old jet with a new carrier...
I thought it had been proved both carriers will be manned at the same time. The RN has the ships and personnel for task group operations - which in future will be carrier centred. Incidentally RN frigates and destroyers have experience of riding shotgun for US or French carriers and are fully capable of it.
I would not pay too much attention to Mrs Moon - "carriers without aircraft" indeed.
NSA is correct - the leaks from defence are not his responsibility as he works for Cabinet Office. Its like asking CAS to discuss leaking of Army documents from a small unit - not his area.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They'll give him a seat in the Lords for sure...............
But he seems to have no responsibility for anything reading his responses - he swans about "co-ordinating" but says he doesn't know if cuts would be necessary "in a fiscally neutral environment".............. he's the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR for heavens sake- if he doesn't know who the hell does?
They'll give him a seat in the Lords for sure...............
They'll give him a seat in the Lords for sure...............
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Melchett, we have to go back to CVA01 and the type 82 to find your coherent strategy, and we couldn't afford it then.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think he made many friends on the Committee - and although they're only jobbing politicians it doesn't help the cause of more money for defence IMHO
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....small matters like the Falklands, perhaps? Not that it matters much as Corbyn will probably hand it back to the Argentinians within 5 years when he gets in, regardless.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s strategic incoherence, which is about the only thing we are really consistently good at these days. Rather than considering the carriers as items on their own, they should have been part of a fully integrated project that considered the carrier as the platform, the air assets as the delivery mechanism and the need for protection. If we have have considered these holistically, and I’m not convinced we have in any sense other than accidentally, I’ll be surprised. We certainly wouldn’t have had the cats & traps saga if we had, and we’re now tied into such an expensive platform that we can’t even man both carriers, will probably embark a small number of assets that numerically probably don’t need a carrier that size and we can’t protect it without stopping however many other task lines if it ever does get out of dock fully loaded.
But what I frankly find utterly baffling is the final statement that, in the context of BREXIT which is tying the country in knots to achieve full sovereign independence, we are spending billions on a capability that should in theory be a prime tool for exercising that sovereign independence, and yet we refuse to use it outside of the confines of an coalition - where it may actually even end up being under command of whomever is leading the coalition at the time.
You simply just just couldn’t make this stuff up. Can they even spell strategy in Whitehall let alone implement it effectively?
But what I frankly find utterly baffling is the final statement that, in the context of BREXIT which is tying the country in knots to achieve full sovereign independence, we are spending billions on a capability that should in theory be a prime tool for exercising that sovereign independence, and yet we refuse to use it outside of the confines of an coalition - where it may actually even end up being under command of whomever is leading the coalition at the time.
You simply just just couldn’t make this stuff up. Can they even spell strategy in Whitehall let alone implement it effectively?
Because there isnt going to be any Brexit and if anything, we'll be getting tied in even closer to the EU Force that Nick Clegg reckoned was a Faragist lie (less said about that the better). There is no sovereign independence and there isnt going to be. And as for strategy...
