Following the splendour, discipline and pageantry demonstrated by members of our armed forces in abundance at the Coronation over the weekend, this week is all about a slow and probably methodical return to the realities of UK defence – or lack of it!
I have long held the view that there has been far too much pretence and self-belief here in the UK that we have judged it right in respect of cutting back on legacy capability and that there has been rather too much emphasis being played out on presupposed wars of tomorrow rather than those that will continue to impact us today. We kid ourselves that we have sufficient defence equipment and manpower capability and we dare not admit the stark realities of the day – that we are wrong and that just maybe we have never had such low levels of available defence capacity than we have today.
Sadly, we in the UK have developed an unfortunate habit of kidding ourselves that we are the best there is and that the rest of the world looks up to us. Well, they no longer do and although they dislike saying it openly, deep down the largest of our NATO allies, the US, no longer believes that we have sufficient levels of defence capability.
We have long had an unfortunate tendency to pretend that we are flexible and adaptable to needs and that somehow, we can meet every obstacle that we might face and that our objectives are always right. The reality is that while we can and do still do much, we have never been so stretched in what we are able to do and achieve.
Whether it is what we base assumptions on and that leads to decisions that emerge in foreign and defence related strategy, five yearly defence and security reviews or internally based criticisms, we almost always come out challenging each and every criticism and defending, or at the very least failing to admit, bad decisions that have been made rather than accepting that yes – we got it wrong.
I suppose this may be described as a somewhat unusual and perhaps somewhat personal view and perspective of how I see defence today. So be it and I do and always have recognised the difficulties of defence being a political choice in so-called peacetime and I also recognise and indeed, welcome that we are spending on a variety of new defence capability particularly ships, submarines, space, security and in replacing land-based equipment. Much good work is undoubtedly being done and of the thousands of defence related contracts awarded by the MOD through DE&S, let us remember that it is only a small few that go wrong.
A contract signing announcement yesterday from MOD/DE&S is typical of what will provide UK defence with a greater means to success. A shore-based test and integration facility will be kitted out with the Type 31 mission systems equipment, under a deal placed by DE&S with Thales that secures dozens of UK jobs.
The £70 million contract will provide equipment and technical services into the Type 31 Mission System Shore Integration Facility at Portsdown Technology Park, the Royal Navy’s test and integration facility in Portsmouth. The facility will ensure the mission systems and equipment, which will be fitted to the five Type-31 – or Inspiration-class – frigates, can be safely and effectively used by the Royal Navy personnel on board the highly-capable vessels. The contract itself will secure 30 highly skilled engineering jobs in Crawley where the Thales Above Water Systems unit is based. Overall, more than 2,650 jobs are being supported by the Type 31 programme (construction is expected to support around 1,250 highly-skilled jobs at Babcock International, plus an additional 150 apprenticeships and some 1,250 roles in the UK supply chain are also expected to be supported by the programme.
Back to realities and of course, those that make the ultimate decisions related to defence operation and defence procurement – the politicians – have an unfortunate tendency to blame those charged with putting plans into action or that are merely acting as messengers when it all goes wrong.
I am reminded of the infamous words expressed by the late Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke who, priding himself as others always saw him – a master of strategy – had no love of politicians:
‘‘The more I see politicians, the less I think of them. They are seldom influenced by the true aspects of the problem and are usually guided by some ulterior political reason. They are terrified of public opinion as long as the enemy is sufficiently far away – but when closely threatened by the enemy they are rather inclined to lose their heads and then blame all their previous errors on the heads of the military – whose previous advice they had singularly failed to follow”.
As Winston Churchill’s principle military advisor, Alanbrooke was there merely as someone who would challenge Churchill’s ideas and conceptions and, if and when required, argue against them. They tolerated each other and I also recall that Alanbrooke said of Churchill in his diaries in 1941, “God knows where we would be without him, but God know where we shall go with him”.
The corollary of all this is the need for leadership. In Ben Wallis, we currently have a Secretary of State for Defence who commands a relatively high level of respect internally within the Government, the MOD, internally within the military and externally within industry and elsewhere. The ministerial team are, despite another recent change, well liked and on top of their briefs. But it can in this day and age be a difficult job running defence and having for the most part HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office as your almost number one enemies make this a very difficult job.
Whether or not Mr. Wallis has, as frequently reported, ambitions to become the next Secretary General of NATO I do not know but there is as they say, no smoke without fire and it is quite unusual that Wallis has been left in his current political position for rather a long time by comparison to other senior ministerial appointments and the array of prime ministers that we have had in recent times.
If NATO Head is a personal ambition for Mr. Wallace I wish him well. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (the former Labour Secretary of State for Defence under Tony Blair, George Robertson) was the last such British politician to become Head of Nato (1999- 2003) – a man who I know well and respect enormously. Wallace is no George Robertson but, in an age where sadly, PR often appears to matter more than substance, he may well make a very good choice.
Be that as it may, leadership in defence comes not only from the top it is demonstrated by those at the head of our military services. I have never met the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders but had thought him an inspired choice. I have previously met the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key but not in recent years and I have enjoyed several meetings in earlier years with the current Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin.
Next month will see Air Marshal Sir Richard Knighton become the first engineer head of the Royal Air Force and I will not hide the absolute pleasure and enthusiasm that I have for the choice. I have had the pleasure of knowing Air Marshal Knighton for many years now and he will, I am sure, work hard not only to rebuild lost trust of some of his people but also stand up for all of his people fairly.
I began this section of my commentary today talking of leadership and it is natural to pose the question whether the military chiefs should be allowed a greater voice. Their political masters would of course say no and that is a situation that has endured over the past twenty odd years and more. But I do believe that as part of trying to make UK defence better we need to reconsider how far our military leaders should go in providing personal opinions. We need their open perspective and judgement. We do not need those who purely tow the MOD or political line for what it could mean for the potential furtherance of their own personal careers.
That we do well with an ever-decreasing amount of capability and manpower in defence can hardly be denied but of how we see ourselves and of how we believe other see of us needs to change. We must stop kidding ourselves that we have defence of the realm covered because that is no longer true. That our allies still rely on us for the many specialities we have can hardly be denied but increasing, we now rely on them because they, unlike we, have not disengaged from the reality of what faces us.
As ever it was with me, it is our increasingly limited air power capability – be that in military fast yet and unmanned capacity, medium lift aircraft capability and ISTAR capability that causes me most alarm. The Royal Air Force may have some very modern capability but it just doesn’t have enough of it. As a Force, the RAF has been consistently run down and our limitations are easy for a would-be enemy to see.
I am not suggesting that we need a fraction of the capability that we once had – only that we need more of what we have. Our stocks of complex air weapon capability is, following Iraq and Syria campaigns, extremely low. Yes, we are investing in the future in vital air programmes such as Tempest and which is the embodiment of the Future Combat Air Systems (FCAS) programme. We are looking beyond into space and accepting the need to spend more on security.
But for the here and now we have insufficient numbers of Typhoon and F-35 combat jets, we lack various forms of ISTAR capability albeit that while the brilliant Sentinel capability was stupidly dropped prematurely and that ultimately Sentry E3D capability will be partially replaced, we remain extremely limited in what we can do. As to the decision to dispose of C-130J medium lift capability, words fail me.
Enough for now – to be continued!
CHW (London – 10th May 2023)
Howard Wheeldon FRAeS
Wheeldon Strategic Advisory Ltd,
M: +44 7710 779785
Skype: chwheeldon
@AirSeaRescue