‘Mock What Little We Spend On Defence If You Like But Never Forget That In The Future Your Life May Have to Depend On It!
It was during the second Iraq war at a time when arguments of low level of UK defence spend in relation to GDP first appeared that I used the above words for the very first time during a speech to an aerospace conference associated with the 2004 Farnborough Air Show. Almost six years on it is sad to reflect that I would not change one single solitary word! Indeed, we should note that it is now almost eight years since Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward (Senior Task Group Commander, South Atlantic during the 1982 Falklands war) said that until the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter finally came into front line service should a British task force (similar to that which almost twenty-eight years ago would have been about to ready itself to head off to rid the Falklands Islands of invading forces from Argentina) “face a similar threat we would have to rely on direct US carrier support for its air defence” it seems that absolutely nothing has changed and all too little learned of the dangers of weakness by a British government charged with ensuring that Britain and its foreign interests are fully protected. In short we may conclude that Britain today is both under protected and that in terms of overall defence, hugely under resourced.
Despite massive cuts in real defence spending in recent years and particularly cuts that had roots in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review since when, for instance, the number of front line Royal Navy surface fighting ships have been cut from 35 to just 26 now perhaps the one thing that can be said is that amazingly we do still have two very worthy if ageing Invincible class aircraft carriers in the form of HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious. Ahead of the next planned Strategic Defence Review due to commence later this year and to which both main political parties in the UK are for different reasons committed it can at least be said that to its eternal credit the government has so far remained absolutely embedded to a policy that will see two new aircraft carriers (built by BAE Systems and its partners at a cost of around £4bn) entering the fleet to replace the Invincible class carriers in 2014 and 2016. Well that’s what we hope of course and that what we are currently led to believe. We are also led to believe that Britain will go ahead with Trident nuclear replacement although on this I remain a sceptic. However, depending on which party should win the upcoming General Election in May or whenever, depending what may or may not come from the future defence review meaning perhaps that one or maybe both the planned Queen Elizabeth class carriers could still be cancelled or built and sold or whatever (despite the fact that by then well in excess of £1.5bn will have been spent on both ships by then) until the government commits [or otherwise] to the 70 or is it to be 30 or 35 STOVL JSF variant that are planned to be acquired by the British government and that would be built by the Lockheed Martin led program partnership that includes BAE Systems and Rolls Royce amongst others as main strategic partners we cannot even be sure what aircraft might go on the carriers! Already pushed back by the government another two years meaning the new carriers will now not enter the Royal Navy fleet until 2014 and 2016 respectively delaying confirmation of JSF planes – a program that is itself also behind schedule though thankfully not this time at the behest of any of the UK government or UK partnership contingent – it seems that the government may be running with the quite ludicrous idea that GR7 and GR9 Harrier VSTOL aircraft built as long ago as 1984/5 and that cannot even be considered all-weather fighters might see their lives being further extended! Well, it seems to me that it is either that or nothing on board the ships bar a few helicopters – unless of course the carriers are fitted with catapult systems which might just, with modification, allow existing front line fighter aircraft to fly on and off them. Frankly though I somehow doubt that this is a suitable option although that said, I would not be surprised to see the second of class carrier fitted with a catapult system.
Talk about a Navy unfit to fight because it is just not being given the right number of tools but the bottom line of this story is that unbeknown to most of us that could only be the half of it. Given the huge commitment that the Royal Navy has both in terms of domestic defence, supporting the current campaign in Afghanistan, protection and other vital NATO related work across various oceans including drug seizures, protecting vital foreign British interests such as the Falkland Islands and the other thirteen dependent territories the Royal Navy is run on a shoe string. True, Astute submarines will join the fleet soon and six brilliant new Type 45 destroyers will have been added to the fleet within four more years replacing well worn Type 42 ships. Great but the problem is that more deep cuts in the Royal Navy are clearly on the way. Talking about defence cuts reminds of course that it was Royal Navy defence cuts – in this case the withdrawal of Sea Harriers and the withdrawal of the ice patrol vessel HMS Endurance that sent more than enough signals to Argentina of just what to do next back in 1982!
While my deepest concern about what the government is doing now to cut the defence budget is to bring down the number of front line fighter aircraft expected to be in readiness to below sixty (including JSF) I will not dwell on this today. However, given the huge debate about the proposed new aircraft carriers it may be useful to have a quick look at the rather strange love affair that British governments have over the years often had with aircraft carriers!
An Interesting Aside – UK Post War Carrier History
I did not set out at the start of this paper to further the debate on whether or not Britain needs two new carriers or not. My own view on this matter is already well known – given our NATO commitment we certainly do need at least two aircraft carriers. Furthermore, I believe that we underplay the role of both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan at our peril. I should be able to say with some degree of certainty that the fact that no aircraft carrier of any World Navy has actually been lost to enemy action since 1944 should not matter in this particular debate although I dare say that it does say something fairly important that sceptics are won’t to jump on. Britain is well used to debates on whether carriers should be built or not of course. It was the same story as today following the end of WW2 when in 1948/9 a dreadful debate raged within the then Labour government over the building of two proposed ‘Audacious class’ aircraft carriers that when built were actually named HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal. Thus as the fourth HMS Ark Royal to bear the name (originally she was planned to be named HMS Irresistible) launched by Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in 1950, commissioned in 1955 and the largest carrier to have ever joined the fleet at that time I may allow myself a personal comment here and say that this was to me the finest ship that I ever had the pleasure of walking on. Indeed the life of this particular Ark Royal was greatly extended when following vast 1966 defence cuts the planned 50,000-ton replacement program was cancelled. HMS Eagle was eventually decommissioned in 1972 although kept in reserve to be stripped of spares to keep HMS Ark Royal in service. Decommissioned at a ceremony held in Plymouth in November 1978 and following a very splendid career – an event that was deemed so important and so closely followed by the public that it was marked by a superb JAK cartoon in the Evening Standard that day – HMS Ark Royal was scrapped just before Argentina invaded the Falklands.
In hindsight it is to me quite amazing and yet obviously pleasing that following more argument and public debate during the late 1970’s that Britain went ahead building three 17,000-ton (initially known as Invincible class) carriers that entered the fleet between 1979 and 1985. Two of the Invincible class carriers (HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal) built by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering – later VSEL and eventually absorbed by GEC Marconi (now BAE Systems) remain in service with the Royal Navy to this day. Just as an aside worth noting that the current and fifth HMS Ark Royal was originally intended to be named HMS Indomitable – the name being changed to Ark Royal following some degree of public bitterness at the decommissioning of the fourth Ark Royal! The first of the three carriers of this class, HMS Invincible, was decommissioned four years ago although is still believed to still be in official store off Rosyth, Scotland. As aircraft/commando carriers and relying solely on Harrier VSTOL aircraft plus Helicopters all three ‘Invincible’ class carriers were fitted with ski- ramps of varying sizes.
In looking at our international and NATO related commitments I am absolutely convinced that we need not only both planned replacement carriers but also sufficient JSF fighter aircraft to operate off them. I am not saying that it needs to be sixty and I would certainly not rule out looking at higher levels of transfer between the two ships when appropriate or when one of the two ships is in port. I am equally convinced that while the Royal Navy should not operate with a fleet of under the current 26 surface fighting ships and maybe 14/15 mine-hunters we should take great care before making further alteration to the sub-surface fleet. Although I fully support replacement at a lower level the issue of Trident replacement is neither part of this article or indeed, will it be part of the upcoming 2010 Strategic Defence Review. The decision on this will of course be as much political as it will be taken on economic and financial grounds. To me the bottom line is that there is a distinct danger that we in Britain are now because of how the government is approaching the whole matter of defence of the realm in danger of underplaying the vital role and importance of the Royal Navy.
As we move closer to the General Election and the upcoming Strategic Defence Review I would stress part of an underlying point made by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope at a lecture I attended last week at the IISS (International Institute of Strategic Studies). Stanhope essentially pointed out that a capable navy with a global presence not only supports operations but has the power to shape them. His argument is that Maritime power can and does play a part in allowing a relatively small force of ground troops to achieve superiority in critical areas of our choosing. The Royal Navy has time and time again proven that if we allow ourselves to believe that because the hardware is expensive we cannot and should not afford to maintain a navy of strength we will regret it. That was certainly true in Tudor times just as it was in Victorian times and again in the early part of the twentieth century. Let us hope that history will not be allowed to repeat itself again!
