A written answer of interest was given yesterday in Parliament, which provides a bit more detail on the Core Defence Budget and, crucially, on what fits into it. It is worth reading into it, and point out a few things.
17 Dec 2012 : Column 611W
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-4, on defence budget and transformation, what airlift capabilities are part of the Core Equipment Programme. At the start of this year Jane's reported that the work ongoing to define the Merlin HC3 CSP and navalisation had generated a list of modifications including:
Mr Dunne: The airlift capabilities in the Core Equipment Programme consist of current in-service capabilities plus the following equipment programmes and their support costs for which funding is allocated:
BAE 146 Quick Change - interesting to see the two QC airplanes included in the Core budget: they have been procured as an Afghanistan UOR, but the inclusion of them in this list suggests that they might well have already a long-term future ensured, which would be very good news.Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-4, on defence budget and transformation, what helicopter capabilities are part of the Core Equipment Programme. 
Mr Dunne: The helicopter capabilities in the Core Equipment Programme consist of current in-service capabilities plus the following equipment programmes and their support and training costs:
Chinook Mk6 New BuyApache Capability Sustainment Programme - i covered this point in great detail here.Merlin Capability Sustainment Programme - albeit not specified, this should include the CSP for the HC3 utility Merlins (to be known as HC4 following CSP), not just the soon-to-be-completed HM2 upgrade for the Navy's own Merlins. From other answers and documents we know this will also include at least the assessment phase funding for navalisation of the HC3. The HC4 navalised is expected in service in the Commando Helicopter Force from 2017. The HC3 will be working with the CHF already from 2016, however.Falkland Island Search and Rescue and Support Helicopter - a decision on how this will be delivered after 2016 has yet to be takenWildcat—Army and Navy variants - Still unclear what is happening with the 8 Light Assault Helicopters that were announced in planning round 2011. The annual NAO Major Projects Report should help us understand what is going on in this field.
- Cockpit and avionics from the HM2 upgrade, to maximize logistic and training commonality
- Powered folding main rotor head and tail pylon
- Radar Identification System
- Flotation gear
- Lashing points for deck operations at sea
- Telebrief equipment
I'd expect a full fitting of fast roping equipment, which is not indicated but nearly certain to be among requirements. The folding tail i would personally put on the "we'd like to, but...": already in 2010, the Royal Navy had been quietly saying that, since on the new carriers the space is not as much of a problem as on HMS Ocean, they'd content themselves with the folding rotor, in order to save money.
So i wouldn't be surprised if the tail stays as it is. Of course, we'll have to see what happens.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-4, on defence budget and transformation, (1) what carrier strike capabilities are part of the Core Equipment Programme; 
(2) what the surface fleet is in the Core Equipment Programme. 
Mr Dunne: The Carrier Strike capabilities in the Core Equipment Programme consist of the following equipment programmes and their support and training costs for which funding is allocated:
Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriersMilitary Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) Tankers - contracts signed, first tanker to be delivered in late 2015 and the other 3 to follow at six months intervalsCrowsnest—Airborne maritime surveillance and control, to be fitted to the Merlin Mk2 helicopter, which will replace the Sea King Airborne Surveillance and Control (SKASaC) system - Assessment Phase to be launched early in the new year. Reportedly won't be in service before 2020, leaving a very dangerous, damaging gap in the Navy's capability for several years. I still hope in common sense to prevail: i'm sure the pace of Crowsnest can be speeded up immensely if there is the will to do so.
In other documents, notably the MOD Top Level Messages, it is reported that money is also included for the first phases of the design of the 3 Solid Support Ships meant to replace the current Forts. No explicit promises about funding for their acquisition yet. It would thus appear that the SSS will be either built in the 2020s, outside the current financial planning horizon, or that it is on the list of things competing to get part of the 8 "uncommitted" billions in the 2015 SDSR. If the Forts aren't life extended further (very possible) they will retire in the very first years of the new decade, making their replacement rather urgent.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-4, on defence budget and transformation, what fast jet capabilities are part of the Core Equipment Programme. 
Mr Dunne: The fast jet capabilities in the Core Equipment Programme consist of current in-service capabilities plus the following equipment programmes and their support and training costs for which funding is allocated:
Typhoon Future Capability Package 2 - Integration of Storm Shadow and Brimstone included. RAF wants and needs it before Tornado GR4 leaves service in March 2019. Some thought will also be in order regarding Imagery Intelligence currently provided by Tornado with RAPTOR pods.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-4, on defence budget and transformation, what heavy armoured platforms are part of the Core Equipment Programme. 
17 Dec 2012 : Column 612W
Mr Dunne: The heavy armoured platforms in the Core Equipment Programme consist of the following in-service capabilities:
Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank - a 500+ million CSP for 227 tanks is also part of the budget, we have been told.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-4, on defence budget and transformation, what counter chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear capabilities are part of the Core Equipment Programme. 
Mr Dunne: The chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear capabilities in the Core Equipment Programme consist of current in-service capabilities plus the following equipment programmes and their support costs for which funding is allocated:
Aircrew Protective Equipment and Detection
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-4, on defence budget and transformation, what submarine capabilities form part of the Core Equipment Programme. 
Mr Dunne: The submarine capabilities in the Core Equipment Programme consist of current in-service capabilities plus the following equipment programmes and their support and training costs for which funding is allocated:
Successor programme to replace the Vanguard Class submarines. The main investment decision is due in 2016.Maritime Underwater Future Capability - initial studies into the shape and capabilities of the next generation SSN meant to replace the Astute classMr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-64, on defence budget and transformation, whether the cost of personnel from all three services is included as part of the Core Equipment Programme. 
Mr Dunne: The cost of service personnel is not included as part of the Core Equipment Programme.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-64, on defence budget and transformation, whether any items on the single integrated priority list are included in the Core Equipment Programme. 
Mr Dunne: The Single Integrated Priority List is a consolidated list of the Ministry of Defence's future priorities for investment in military capability. It is separate from the core equipment programme, which consists of those equipment programmes to which we have already made a commitment to invest, their support costs, and the support costs for in-service equipment.During the course of Annual Budgeting Cycle 13, the new discipline in our budgetary regime has allowed us to give the go ahead for a series of equipment projects, some of which were previously on the Single Integrated Priority List, which have now been brought into the core equipment programme. This includes targeting pods for fast jets, 76 additional Foxhound patrol vehicles (the minister here is presumably talking of the two separate orders for 25 and 51 additional vehicles that we have had), better protection systems for Tornado GR4, additional precision-guided Paveway IV bombs and enhancements to Merlin helicopters.
As far as i'm aware, there have been no details released about orders for additional targeting pods: Litening III no doubts, but how many?
Similarly, there is no details about the 'better protection' for Tornado jets. A wild guess is that the current UOR enhanced countermeasures employed in Afghanistan might have been secured for long term use. This includes the Advanced IR Counter Measures (AIRCM) pod, based on Terma's Modular Countermeasures Pod, flown on the port wing. On the starboard wing, the Tornadoes employ the legacy flares dispenser.
In recent times, another UOR introduced a Helmet Mounted Cueing System, which might have now received additional funding to make it available to a greater number of crews, since it was initially procured in very small numbers. The HMCS had earlier been used on the Harrier GR9.
The enhancements to the Merlin are also a mystery at the moment.
As for the additional Paveway IVs, it is a debatable claim that possibly implies uncomfortable truths: substantial Paveway IV orders, after all, are supposed to be funded by the Treasury as part of the net additional cost of Operation Ellamy in Libya, where hundreds of Paveway IVs were expended, along with many Paveway IIs.
The Paveway IIs that are not being replaced, the expended Stom Shadows neither (part of why the costs announced in Parliament appeared so low!), but the Paveway IVs and Brimstones used are supposed to be replaced with Treasury money. The suspect is that, at the end of the day, the money is actually coming out of the MOD's budget.
A good news is that, as part of the latest orders, Raytheon UK is progressing with the demonstration of a bunker buster warhead for the Paveway IV assembly. This is part of a series of enhancements and evolutions to the bomb envisaged under SPEAR Capability 1.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-4, on defence budget and transformation, what Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance capabilities are part of the Core Equipment Programme. 
Mr Dunne: Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) in the Core Equipment Programme consists of current in-service capabilities plus the following equipment programmes and their support costs for which funding is allocated:
Scavenger—Future armed operational unmanned air system (UAS) - a long expected announcement on the way ahead, to be chosen jointly with France, has been delayed again and again, but it's at least reassuring to see the programme is part of the Committed budget
Seaseeker—Maritime electronic surveillance - includes the fitting of SIGINT/ELINT equipment to the Type 45 destroyers, underway
Seer—Tactical electronic surveillance deployed on land - UOR brought into core: man-portable electronic warfare equipment, part of the wider Landseeker effort that succeeds the cancelled Soothsayer programme
Sentinel—Airborne wide area surveillance - very glad to see Sentinel in the core budget: considering how the answer is formulated, this would suggest that plans to scrap the Sentinel in 2014/15 have been finally abandoned
Replacing Nimrod MRA4
In the meanwhile, the government has replied to the damning report of the Defence Committee on Maritime Surveillance, making clear that the future procurement of a Maritime Patrol Aircraft will necessarily pass through a wider study known as Air ISTAR Optimisation Strategy (AIOS):
[...] the Department currently has no defined requirement for an MPA capability. The study into Wide Area Maritime Underwater Search (WAMUS) concluded that in the near term the most appropriate solution to a potential underwater surveillance requirement was a manned aircraft, but the Department’s longer term objective is to merge as many surveillance requirements as possible into single equipment builds (e.g. radars that can operate in multiple modes and in all environments) and to further refine platform types, capabilities and numbers to achieve maximum effect at minimum cost. As such, those requirements previously covered by the Nimrod MR2/MRA4 capability are now
integrated in the Air ISTAR portfolio and work is underway in the form of the AIOS to understand how these requirements can be best covered from the current and planned Air ISTAR Fleet.The initial findings of the study will be reported to the Military Capability Board (MCB) in April 2013. Those options that appear to merit further investigation will then be developed to inform a MCB Genesis Option Decision Point prior to CSR15/SDSR15. As set out above, we will keep the Committee informed of our work in this area. In the meantime, we have investigated what military off-the-shelf capabilities exist. For comparison, generation of the AIRSEEKER airborne signals intelligence capability, replacing Nimrod R1 through an extension to the US RIVET JOINT aircraft production line, will have taken just under five years from the identification of the requirement to reaching Initial Operating Capability. Should the situation warrant it, adoption of off-the-shelf platforms, coupled with the Seedcorn personnel, could establish a capability in significantly less time.
This means that the budget holder for the Maritime Patrol Aircraft is the newborn Joint Forces Command.
Another news is that tomorrow the Skynet 5D satellite will be launched. It has already been mated to the Arianne rockets that will bring it into orbit.
The addition of this new satellite to the constellation will dramatically enhance and expand communications for the armed forces.
Skynet 5D will meet its 3 equivalents in space, which are also supported by 3 earlier Skynet 4 satellites and by the old but still useful NATO IVB satellite, which was taken over for free in 2011 from the Alliance which was about to put it on a dead orbit. It now provides two extra UHF channels to the armed forces.
In 2022, ownership of all the satellites, currently in the hands of prime contractor ASTRIUM, will pass directly to the MOD at no additional cost.
Yearly speech of the Chief Defence Staff
A very interesting speech delivered by general sir David Richards, which contained elements of particular interest regarding Royal Navy and british Army.
The full speech, as available on the Ministry of Defence website, reads:
Thank you Lord Hutton for your kind introduction. It is good to
see so many friends and colleagues here and may I take the opportunity
to thank you all for your strong support to the Armed Forces. It is
I am feeling slightly cautious this evening. Our senior Defence
Attaché in the Americas tells me that in the Aztec calendar today is the
Day of the Lizard. They say:
‘The warrior must be like the lizard, who is not hurt by a high
fall but, instead, immediately climbs back to its perch. These are good
days to keep out of sight; bad days to attract attention.’
So perhaps today isn’t the best time to be standing before you!
In honouring my commitment to this august organisation that plays
such an important role in the life of UK Defence, I want to take the
opportunity to examine where we are today, what deductions we should
draw, and what we are doing to ensure we are prepared for tomorrow.
You are all aware of how much change there has been over the past
two years. We have begun to introduce the SDSR, balanced the books and
turned a corner in Afghanistan. Yet much of the world seems less
stable and more dangerous than was the case even two years ago; a harsh
world in which intra-state conflict can be confused by and for new forms
of inter-state conflict. A world in which governance vacuums present
opportunities for extremist groups to perpetrate large-scale violence
and disruption, especially as precision-strike capabilities, cyber
instruments and bio terror weaponry become inevitably more accessible.
And this in a period when economic fragility makes us both more
vulnerable and less able to respond in a confident and timely manner, a
reality aggravated by the huge cost differentials between western forces
and non-state opponents.
All this is demanding much from all of us and is changing the shape and capabilities of the Armed Forces.
Together with my fellow Chiefs I have been examining, as you
would expect, how we should best use what we have and what we need for
the future. We have to be hard-nosed realists; accepting we have less
than we would wish but that we are still required to protect this
nation’s interests through the projection of military force. We cannot
shrug our shoulders and hope the problem will go away. We have to be
ready to fight and fight effectively, often not on our own terms and
accepting the constraints we are under. I have brought this together in
a piece of work I will be sharing in the future called How We Will
Fight. And I will look at some of its key deductions in a moment.
We should be under no illusions; the Armed Forces of tomorrow,
like those of today, will be engaged in operations around the world.
They will require the best of their generation as they always have.
People who can think flexibly and with imagination. As Einstein said,
“imagination is more important than knowledge”.
These operations will not be carbon copies of Afghanistan or
Libya. But they will require the same skill and dedication that these
operations, and all the others we have engaged in since the Cold War,
have demanded. They will require the strength and indeed guile that our
Army, Navy and Air Force are famous for.
Building on the battle-winning reputation, proven resilience and
technological edge of the past decade, I hope you won’t notice some of
the tasks the Armed Forces will be doing. They will be performing a key
part of our developing military strategy – deterrence. Preventing
conflict, you may recall, is rightly a principal task of Defence.
I will come back to this theme later but it is worth remembering
that your Armed Forces are often most effective when they are not in the
headlines. Few operations, exercises or training missions are widely
reported but each one communicates that we are strong, credible and
reliable. This deters our enemies and reassures our friends.
And we should be proud of our nation’s record in this respect.
The relative peace we have enjoyed here in the UK for the past 70 years
is not an accident. It is in large part the result of the quiet work of
diplomats building friendships, the skill of our financiers and
businessmen in making our economy strong, and the courage of our Armed
Forces in deterring and when necessary overcoming threats.
Afghanistan is an example of this lesson. With our partners in
NATO/ISAF and the ANSF we have been more successful than many,
I have recently returned from a visit there and, I can tell you,
we are meeting the tasks laid on us. Over the past decade we have:
a. closed Al Qaeda’s bolthole ;
b. helped underpin a more stable government;
c. overseen elections;
d. trained an Army and police force;
e. and put a country that suffered 30-years of war into a
position where industry, education and the rule of law are beginning to
True, there is a long way to go. The presidential elections in
2014 will be hugely important. But we are heading in the right
direction and we have proved what can be done with the right resources
and with the right support.
I look forward to 2013 seeing us increasingly transition to an
Afghan lead as we move from mentoring battalions to supporting brigades.
The Afghan Army now enjoys the support and trust of 84 percent of
the country, only 3 percent less than the British Army in this country.
That is a fantastic achievement, by them and ISAF. It recognises the
integral part they are playing in turning the destiny of a country away
from violence and onto a path of peace.
I am proud of what our Service men and women have achieved in
Afghanistan. Alongside partners in DFID and the Foreign Office we have
given Afghans a chance they couldn’t have dreamt of only a few years
Our operation in Afghanistan does not stand alone. It is linked
to Pakistan and India and the wider region. In my recent trip to
Islamabad, a city I have got to know well, I was very encouraged by the
helpful attitude of civilian and military leaders to reconciling the
Taliban. The Taliban, like us, are focussed on Afghanistan’s
presidential poll and the end of our combat operations in 2014. They
know that the window of opportunity to play a role in their country’s
future is closing.
Every day the Afghan Army and Police grow in capability and
legitimacy. Every day the government is better able to serve its people
and thus better able to marginalise the Taliban. Now, surely, the time
is ripe to take risk in order to find that elusive political solution
10 years of military effort and sacrifice has sought to create the
conditions for? But in order to pull this off, it is vital that Afghan
confidence in the West’s long-term commitment to their country is
retained. Why, should this be lost, would they stay the course
themselves let alone fight to protect us in 2014 when, absent successful
reconciliation, we will be at our most vulnerable? And why should the
Taliban reconcile, if they thought we were ‘cutting and running’?
Retaining Afghan confidence is the campaign’s centre of gravity. And
for the UK, retaining our influence and status within NATO and amongst
key allies, is another reason for getting this right.
While achieving our goals in Afghanistan, British Armed Forces have been active elsewhere around the world. For example:
In Libya we fought in support of a people who wanted to be free
from tyranny. We joined allies from around the world built around a
NATO core. Together, we supplied the air force and the navy. The
people themselves were the army. They made the change happen.
In the seas off Somalia we are playing our part in an operation
that is controlling the spread of piracy. Alongside navies from around
the world, including Pakistan, India and China, reinforcing the benefit
Closer to home we have also been proud to play our part in HM the
Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations. And my fellow Chiefs and I were
delighted to receive so many letters of support for the actions of our
Regular and Reserve Service men and women during the Olympics.
It reminded all of us in uniform of the level of support that we
enjoy amongst the people of this country. We are very grateful.
All this has happened as we have been going through reforms.
Over the past two years we have implemented some of the most
radical changes to the Ministry of Defence and to the Armed Forces in
The SDSR shrank the size of the Armed Forces and changed the
governance of the department. And whilst we are aware that the Autumn
Statement has further implications, a balanced budget means we can start
from a firm base and better demonstrate what is at stake.
The new Armed Forces Committee mandates the Chiefs to resolve
problems in the interests of Defence as a whole. It exploits collective
military judgment and balances single service requirements in private
allowing the CDS to go to the Defence Board with the underpinning
authority of a combined Joint service view.
The AFC, the Defence Strategy Group chaired jointly by John
Thomson the PUS and me, and the new style Defence Board chaired by
Philip Hammond enable the MOD to be more agile and decisive in
responding at the strategic level to developing threats and trends. The
world is not a safe place. Some threats to our interests and allies
are long term but some are very present.
The immediate danger of the collapse of the Syrian regime is one.
We will support our allies in the region and would all like to see a
diplomatic solution but cannot afford to remove options from the table
at this stage. Should chemical weapons be used or proliferate, both
President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron have made it clear that a
line would have been crossed.
And Syria is linked to Iran. The regime is backed by Tehran so
the fall of Assad’s dictatorship will impact the Iranian government.
What that means for the stability of the region is as yet unclear.
In my recent trip to the Manama Dialogue I was struck by the
issues that came up. Our host, Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain,
emphasised the threat of nuclear proliferation. North Korea’s missile
test last week aggravates this risk.
The Kenyan and Ugandan armed forces have been exemplary in
bringing order to Somalia but this has not been without cost. Both have
sustained losses, and the retaliation of terrorist groups has
endangered Kampala, Nairobi and the Kenyan coast. We must continue to
support both countries, as well as the fledgling Somali government.
To the west, Mali is a major cause for concern. As still is Yemen, despite President Hadi’s laudable efforts.
Now reducing these short and long term threats, our task is to
evolve a force capable of meeting, with allies, various complex tasks.
By the early 2020s, these plans result in a powerful Joint force that,
on the basis of a balanced budget from Planning Round 12, should be able
to meet the requirements laid on it.
It has not been easy.
But the Secretary of State, building on the work of the SDSR, has
ensured that the department is able to squeeze the most from the
By 2020 we will have kit that many of my fellow NATO Chiefs of
Defence, saddled with much more sclerotic budgets than we, are envious
a. A World Class Carrier Capability with the JSF – Lightning II – on board;
b. Type 45 destroyers on patrol;
c. Type 26 frigates in production;
d. Astute class submarines;
e. Chinook Mk 6 bringing the total Chinook fleet to 60;
f. Typhoon Tranche 3, as well as the Lightning II;
g. Atlas and Voyager air transport and air-to-air refuelling aircraft, underpinned by our now larger C17 fleet;
h. Scout vehicles, upgraded Warrior, Challenger, and Apache to give the Army better reconnaissance, mobility and firepower;
i. Rivet Joint and other critical ISTAR platforms that will ensure we have better situational awareness than ever.
j. And much more emphasis on Cyber, to which I will return shortly.
But our most decisive asset will remain our Service men and women.
As the private sector puts it, we must look after the ‘talent’.
As I see equipment around the world parked with no-one to operate it.
Great equipment without talented people counts for little.
We must ensure our people have the intelligence and confidence to
treat the unexpected as an opportunity to exploit. They must be
capable of informed, independent action; of what has been described as a
‘brains-based approach’ to operations.
You have all heard the common refrain that we must do more with
less. Well, to be frank, that is what we are doing. At the strategic
level, a brains-based approach means deciding to act only when we must
and then doing it well, not always kinetically.
This type of thinking has shaped the work I have started on ‘How
We Will Fight’. Assuming the approach I have just outlined, I and my
fellow Chiefs have designed our forces to:
a. act jointly and with allies, but able to act alone.
b. be well equipped, but not tied to platforms.
c. adapt as the environment changes.
But we must prioritise. And as spending has tightened, we must
be ruthless in our requirements and getting the most from them.
Effectively targeting limited resources is, in large part, the art of
military command in war and in peace through force design.
The new UK Joint Expeditionary Force is an expression of this.
The JEF promises much greater levels of integration than previously
achieved especially when combined with others, as is already happening
with our French allies in the Anglo/French Combined JEF. The JEF must
be genuinely synergistic. It is the building block to future alliances
and independent action. And we would hope that allies such as Denmark
and Estonia, who have fought with distinction in a British formation in
Afghanistan, will want to play key roles within the British element of
What it offers is clear: an integrated joint force with
capabilities across the spectrum at sea, on land and in the air. A
force that can confidently be allocated a specific slice of the battle
space in an allied operation or act alone. It will be the basis of all
our combined joint training.
With the capability to ‘punch’ hard and not be a logistical or
tactical drag on a coalition, we will be especially welcomed by our
friends and feared by our enemies.
The JEF will be of variable size; a framework into which others
fit. It will be the core of the UK’s contribution to any military
action, whether NATO, coalition or independent.
Together with critical C2 elements such as HQ ARRC and the
emphasis placed on the maritime component HQ at Northwood, the JEF is
designed to meet our NATO obligations.
In the Libyan campaign, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab
Emirates were able to play a vital role by bringing their regional
expertise into the command structure of a NATO operation. This provided
greater military and political reach. I look forward to the alliance,
perhaps in part through the vehicle of the JEF, working more with
Britain’s JEF will be capable of projecting power with global
effect and influence. Nowhere is more important to us than our friends
in the Middle East and Gulf and in line with clear political intent we
would expect, with other initiatives, for JEF elements to spend more
time reassuring and deterring in that region.
Let me briefly examine how the How We Fight work affects the
single services, starting with the Royal Navy. As the Prime Minister
has put it, the Navy “keeps the arteries of trade of the global economy
The Royal Navy will continue to grow in importance. As our
carrier capability comes into service it will be a key part of our
diplomatic, humanitarian and military strategy. Prepared to overcome
the toughest military challenges. This is its raison d’être. But I
know it will be used for much more.
The Americans demonstrated through their deployment to Aceh and
Haiti that aircraft carriers have huge strategic impact supporting
people around the world. Seeing US military personnel, ships and
helicopters playing such a critical role boosted the standing of the US
in the world’s most populous Islamic country and undermined extremist
Hard power is an essential element of soft power. In this
respect especially, numbers, or mass, still matter. We must resolve the
conundrum at the heart of Bob Gates quip about ‘exquisite technology’.
In the future, the Chief of the Naval Staff and I have a vision
for a Navy which procures ships differently allowing us to have more,
not fewer platforms.
We must resist the pressure that has shrunk the number of
platforms. Clearly that will mean rethinking the Navy, including
examining the case for ships that may have a limited role in general
war. But this is not new – remember the corvette over the ages – and
is similar to the utility of light and heavy land forces, tailored to
task. And in so doing we will ensure seamanship skills and leadership
qualities, so much in demand by our friends and allies, flourish into
the long term.
The Royal Navy’s maritime and amphibious components, with 3
Commando Brigade Royal Marines at the core of the latter, will be at the
heart of Britain’s JEF. As the concept develops we will look to
acquire ships that range from top-end war fighting elements through
potentially to more vessels tailored to discrete but important tasks, to
be deployed on a range of routine non-warfighting duties.
The Army too is changing. Once we come out of the combat role in
Afghanistan at the end of 2014, it will cease to be on permanent
rotation with the burdens that imposes.
The Army will maintain a hard power war-fighting capability while
creating the strategic influence, support and engagement ability
essential to modern operations.
Like the Navy, these land forces must be equipped to pack a punch but war fighting is not all they’re for.
Conflict prevention, to which I will return in a moment, is not
just sensible strategy; it is a military operation requiring
appropriately configured and equipped forces.
The Army 2020 reforms are a fundamental re-set for the Army,
making the best of a regular force a fifth smaller than when I commanded
it only three years ago.
While we will retain three high-readiness manoeuvre brigades, we
will also have ‘adaptable brigades’ to sustain enduring operations and
routinely develop partnerships and knowledge around the world.
Though more conceptual work is needed, given the importance of
the region and clear Prime Ministerial intent, I envisage two or more
adaptable brigades forming close tactical level relationships with
particular countries in the Gulf and Jordan, for example, allowing for
better cooperation with their forces. Should the need arise for another
Libya-style operation, we will be prepared. This would greatly enhance
our ability to support allies as they contain and deter threats and,
with our naval presence in Bahrain, air elements in the UAE and Qatar,
and traditional but potentially enhanced roles in Oman, Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia, would make us a regional ally across the spectrum.
In Africa, brigades would be tasked to support key allies in the
east, west and south whilst another might be given an Indian Ocean and
SE Asian focus, allowing for much greater involvement in the FPDA, for
If we are to influence, we must know what drives our friends and
how to motivate them. This is not something that can be done on the eve
of an operation. As these adaptable brigades develop links with
countries around their region, this will create opportunities for
soldiers and officers to progress their careers through linguistic and
The Defence Engagement Strategy, prepared with the Foreign
Office, will provide what I have often referred to as a ‘strategic
handrail’ for engagement.
This will require tough decisions. If we are to invest properly
in some relationships, others will naturally get less attention.
But if we get this right ¬– and we will – we will have deeper
links to specific regional partners giving them the confidence to deal
with their own problems and, when appropriate, to act in partnership
What I have described puts military flesh on the bones of welcome, NSC endorsed, national strategy.
This all comes as we are increasing the Reserves and integrating
them closer with the Regular forces. This will do more to increase our
own capacity and ability to help friends and allies.
Turning now to the Royal Air Force. The rate of technological
advance is most keenly felt on air platforms. This is understandable.
These are complex fully networked combat and ISTAR platforms. This
intelligence cuts the time between understanding and reacting. It
allows us better to out-think and out-act our opponents.
At the same time, lift, both tactical and global, reduces the
number of reserves we need to keep, giving the Armed Forces a
flexibility that was unimaginable just a few decades ago.
Understanding and exploiting the opportunities technology
presents will be decisive in maintaining our advantage – in sufficient
numbers – into the future.
Remotely piloted air systems and novel anti-air defences have
changed our understanding of both what it means to fight and defend. We
must not allow sacred cows – such as the indispensability of on-board
pilots – to rule the day. The Chief of the Air Staff is leading the
change. By giving ‘wings’ to UAV pilots the Royal Air Force is
recognising the capability of the platform and skill of the pilot.
Indeed, it is a reflection of how early we are in this process of
transition that we still refer to remotely-piloted air systems or
unmanned aerial vehicles. How long was it before we stopped referring
to the horseless carriage?
For all three Services, their role within an integrated CJEF will
be the driving force in their force development and training. Whoever
the enemy, wherever the threat, we will need partners. Building them
now is an investment in our own future and our capacity to succeed
quickly should war break out.
But there is a new environment within which we must learn to manoeuvre with confidence.
Today Facebook, with around a billion users, is the third most
populous country in the world. It exemplifies one of the most extreme
changes we have seen in the past decades.
Cyberspace is the nervous system of our global economy. We are
reliant on the internet and other networked systems for every aspect of
our lives. It allows bewildering speed of action and global reach.
Unsurprisingly, just as crime has become e-crime, spying has
increasingly become cyber espionage. We have seen nations, their
proxies and non-state actors use this new space for terrorism and
Though not conventional assaults, the hostile cyber attacks on Estonia in 2007, Georgia in 2008 and Burma in 2010 were damaging.
In the Middle East, there have been unprecedented levels of cyber
attack over the past 24 months. Israel has reported over 44 million
attempts to disrupt its government websites during recent tension around
the Gaza strip. STUXNET demonstrated a new class of threat aimed at
process control systems at the heart of modern infrastructure.
Without doubt, actions in cyberspace will form part of any future
conflict. Communication and the control of infrastructure and systems
has become a new environment through which combatants will further their
Our immediate priority must be to ensure our networks are secure
and defensible, working with partners in industry and around the country
to drive up standards and ensure we have robust protocols in place.
This builds on the excellent work done under the National Cyber Security
Strategy but Defence has particular challenges as a department, as
Armed Forces and through the contractors and partners with whom we work.
I am determined that the Armed Forces should understand
cyberspace, and how it will shape future conflict, as instinctively as
we understand maritime, land and air operations.
This will mean changes in the way we operate: new doctrine; new
capabilities; new structures, with Joint Forces Command at their heart.
It will mean a new approach to growing and developing the talent we need
to operate in this new, electronic, environment. Like our Secretary of
State, I see an important role for reserves in this domain.
In examining each environment separately I hope I have
highlighted some of the key issues on the Chiefs’ plate and how we must
respond to them. But the most important is developing an integrated
The JEF is neither the 1980s Canadian model nor, whilst there are
some apparent similarities, is it a British version of the US Marine
The effectiveness of the UK armed forces relies heavily on the
different skill-sets and ethos of each single Service. Each adapted for
its environment, and evolving as times and technology change.
But a joint conceptual approach, based on lessons from the real
world, embedded through force development, in training, on operations
and though the cohering glue of modern C3I and cyber is vital to
delivering the military capability the nation requires.
This is about ensuring single Service skills meld into joint action so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
The JEF won’t mean we can do more with less; it will mean,
through the synergy it provides, that we get the most from what we have.
And doubtless there will be some roles that we continue to leave to
others, notably the USA.
As I close let me draw some lessons from my 41 years in uniform.
Some constants which may seem obvious in this room but are often over looked:
a. The need for military force to influence, secure and protect is as great as ever.
b. I joined an Army that was geared to defend Britain by fighting in Germany.
c. Today life is more complex but the principle is the same.
d. 9/11, and the 7/7 bombings in London show that we cannot choose our battlefields as we once did.
e. The world is not a safer place and the distinction between
home and abroad is strategically obsolete. Today it is part of a
We cannot just stand by and hope we are ignored and danger passes us by.
As the Foreign Secretary said in September last year: “the country that is purely reactive in foreign affairs is in decline”.
Responses may be based on either soft or hard power, but to
divorce the two is strategic blindness. Soft power is not a substitute
for strength. On the contrary, it is often based on the credible threat
of force, either to support a friend or deter an enemy. Hard power and
soft power are intertwined.
It is not enough to provide aid or speak kindly. Our friends
want to know we are there when it counts, not just fair-weather friends.
This is the confidence hard power brings. It drives equipment sales
and thus industrial growth, as well as diplomatic treaties, just as it
has for centuries. But hard power also does more than this: it
Deterrence doctrine has fallen out of fashion so perhaps you will
allow me to recall some of the elements. Sun Tzu’s famous maxim is:
“Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without
Too often this is seen as clever posturing on the eve of battle.
It is not. Training, equipping and partnering with allies enhance the
aura of British power. They give us presence on the world stage and
ensure that we are not tested.
It is worth being clear: when the Armed Forces train we do not
just do it to be ready, we do it to be seen to be ready. When we
succeed on operations, we do not just win a battle. We prove that we
can win a war.
In a very real sense, everything the Armed Forces do deters and
reassures. With enough numbers, enough equipment and with good leaders
at every level, Britain is a credible threat to our enemies and a
reassuring friend to our allies.
This is cheaper than fighting and more credible than talk.
Reading the record of how the Soviets saw the Falklands War
demonstrates this admirably. What many saw as post-colonial folie de
grandeur, the Soviet leadership, rightly, saw as proof that the British
Armed Forces were united with their government and people – Clausewitz’s
famous trilogy – and more than a match for them.
It was far from the only factor, but the increase in Soviet
defence spending in the 1980s which ended up contributing to the
collapse of the Warsaw Pact was partly due to clarity of their failure
to impose their will in neighbouring, occupied countries while Britain
could liberate territory some 8,000 miles away.
As Chief of the Defence Staff I do not wear the burdens of office
any more lightly than my predecessors. I have set out some of my
concerns for the coming years and some of the ways we will think and act
to meet them.
Under the Prime Minister’s chairmanship, The National Security
Council, on which I am privileged to sit, considers all the big
strategic issues that I have listed and more. It is a hugely welcome
addition to Whitehall, directing and bringing clarity to national
strategy and coordinating cross-government action.
But the nature of the world is such that what will later seem
obvious, today is opaque and unpredictable. How will Europe emerge from
the Euro crisis? How will the Arab Spring conclude? How will global
warming affect water supplies? And what of cyber?
After all, grand strategy, while providing a guide to action in
peacetime, is also about being prepared and balanced for what we can
Ensuring we have enough left in the bag while actively deterring,
and when required defeating, aggression against us and our friends,
enough left to succeed against those ‘unknown unknowns’, is ultimately
what I and my fellow Chiefs are paid for.
I have highlighted the passages that i deem more impressive and interesting. They go in the direction i've always suggested to follow: a UK with capable armed forces capable to act indipendently and, perhaps even more crucially, provide a framework in which less well-equipped countries can provide numerical strenght, helped by the crucial enablers fielded by the UK, including the aircraft carriers, the Sentinel R1, the Rivet Joint platforms, the RFA, the strong amphibious fleet and brigade and other elements.
There is also a return to Nelson's "want of frigates", for which i've also been arguing: Nelson wanted cheap frigates in great numbers to serve as eyes for the fleet, and to cover the immense number of jobs that a navy has to cover every day, leaving the big, powerful and expensive ships of the line free to focus on delivering the thick of the military effect.
The Navy needs that kind of approach today more than back then. With the important difference, not always appreciated, that today's frigates and destroyers are the ships of the line, while OPVs and corvettes are the "frigates". The Royal Navy needs a fleet of simpler, smaller but capable, long range "presence" ships to cover the wide variety of not-warlike standing tasks, so that the "ships of the line" can focus on warfighting, reaction and task group roles.
I can't help but wonder if we can read in this speech a ray of hope for Portsmouth's shipyard, among other things: the CDS essentially agrees with me on the strategic concepts, and i think he would agree on the opportunity to begin the rebalancing of the fleet with an order for a couple of OPVs...
On strategy, i can't help but link back to two articles i wrote long ago on the subject. Reading back into them you will see why i recognize myself in the CDS's speech.
Could I get a link to the messages where supposedly intial funding for the 3 SSS is included in the associated budget?ReplyDelete
I'll try to, but the recent move of the MOD website on top Gov.UK means that some of the documents and publications are now very hard to locate.Delete
You also have to keep in mind that lots of into have to be collated together from various documents and mentions.
Anyway, i've located the Top Level Messaged of last month. December's edition seems to have been lost who-knows-where when the website moved.
Scrolling down to page 16 you'll find the passage:
Further work on the Maritime Afloat Reach and Sustainability programme, which will provide a fleet of new, modern vessels for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
Good post, and very interesting stuff.
Lets hope an order for some OPVs, and and some MPAs in the very near future!
He says the JEF will vary in component size. So how large or how small? Will that depend on a) the mission objective b) the readiness of forces?ReplyDelete
It's pretty obvious that the JEF will be scaled according to the mission at hand. From a 1000 men or so to a major division level effort with Navy and RAF support, compliant with Defence Planning Assumptions.Delete
Then what's the RFTG for?Delete
It is part of the JEF. The largest and most capable, in fact.Delete
At high readiness, when the restructuring will have been completed, the UK will have:
- Response Force Task Group, with ships, carrier and air wing, submarines and a 1800 strong Commando battlegroup
- Airborne Task Force, 1300 strong
- Lead Armoured Battlegroup from the reaction brigade at readiness.
These will be for immediate reaction, employed as necessary and as suitable.
If the situation calls for it, they will be expanded by bringing in the full Airborne or Commando of Armored brigade, or a mix of all these and other army formations to deliver the Division-level effort.
This is all very good stuff. But it needs to come out of the governments mouth, not the military! That is my worry.
I pray that the MoD has taken on board the need for "Corvette" type ships for various fly the flag, anti drug, pirate roles. Lets keep the big guns like the T23 / T45 for equipping the Carrier and Amphibious Groups.
Also, I see no mention of Reaper in the Parliment written answers. Could this mean it is safe as all " Current in Service Capabilities" are funded? I would hope that as the Ground Station infrastructure is now being built at Waddington it is safe.
Sentinel implications are a Godsend. Would be total madness to get rid of it. I agree that in the way it has been worded it should be safe.
Another point that caught my eye in the CDS speech is the idea of giving Brigades in the Adaptable force specific regional priorities, Africa, Asia, etc. Seems like a good idea to me.
All in all positive stuff. But numbers are already too far gone and, if the idiots in Government do not care, which they don't ( God how I hate them...) then the military itself needs to start finding ways to get more numbers, as hinted by more quantity less quality for certain roles.
Informative as ever and thank you again for the Blog.
I don't really want corvettes; if most increased patrol boats. But I gather CDS is indicating (but not promising) there will be more than 13 Type 26s around.Delete
He failed to talk about amphib ships though. No one wants an oversized LHD/LPD using CVFs.
Instead the "oversized" LHD is exactly what will act as center of the Task Forces of the future, and it is overall right.Delete
As for getting more Type 26s, i wouldn't bet a penny on it.
So they wont build a new HMS Ocean 2.0?Delete
LPH(R) is a dead program, so i'd say no, they won't.Delete
"I pray that the MoD has taken on board the need for "Corvette" type ships for various fly the flag, anti drug, pirate roles. Lets keep the big guns like the T23 / T45 for equipping the Carrier and Amphibious Groups."
Well, "Hear, hear!" to that, Daniele, if that is what the
CDS meant when he said, " I have a vision for a Navy which procures ships differently allowing us to have more, not fewer platforms." He goes on to mention "corvettes" so it is difficult to imagine that he meant anything else.
"But numbers are already too far gone and, if the idiots in Government do not care, which they don't ( God how I hate them...) then the military itself needs to start finding ways to get more numbers, as hinted by more quantity less quality for certain roles."
Agree with you absolutely that the numbers have been reduced far, far, too much but I'm not sure that substituting quantity for quality is the answer in every case. If it means not having gold-plated items of equipment when we can procure ones that are "good enough" then I am all for it but we have to be extremely careful that the kit procured is actually "good enough". Let's try our utmost to get both quantity and quality.
Agree with you Mike. The key I think is striking a balance between quality and quantity, the quantity which can still be good ships without Gold plated price tags.Delete
Great post as ever Gab!ReplyDelete
I fully agree with you're idea of a UK framework brining 'enablers' like Amphibians and Surveillance aircraft to a wider task force. It's nice to see the Chief seemingly following our way of thinking as well!
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a handful of T26 sacrificed in order to prioritise the building of some low-end ships in Portsmouth. I'm all for this, as long as a good balance between the high/low assets is maintained.
I really don't want to see a couple or more T26 cancelled for a couple more OPV's, we need a real increase in numbers to justify the loss of high-end capabilities otherwise what's the point!
"I really don't want to see a couple or more T26 cancelled for a couple more OPV's, we need a real increase in numbers to justify the loss of high-end capabilities otherwise what's the point!"ReplyDelete
Absolutely, Challenger, you've put it in a nutshell. If it meant cancelling, say, two T26s and getting perhaps six OPVs in return, I'd probably be in favour of it. By the way, how many OPVs do people reckon you could get for a cancelled T26?
I think a couple of decent, long-endurance OPVs could be squeezed out of the cost of a Type 26, assuming the 26' does meet the cost target of 350 million pounds.Delete
A proposal of mine is to build 10 instead of 8 "full spec" Type 26 with towed sonar and everything, and replace the remaining 3 "general purpose" underkitted Type 26 hulls with 6 or more corvette/OPVs, with an eye to the Khaaref: 400 million pounds bought 3 ships fitted with 76mm, anti-ship missiles, hangar and 12 cells for MICA missiles.
Not bad. Of course, for the RN it would be CAMM missiles instead of MICA, and perhaps there would be no 76mm... but i'm only giving a quick suggestion and reference, here.
It's a good idea, I have been thinking along similar lines pretty much ever since the SDSR.Delete
Id much prefer the Khareef or some other slightly more capable (albeit slightly more expensive) corvette as opposed to a stretched River class. Id have a 76mm gun and some small calibre stuff, perhaps try and use the LMM as a very cheap and basic ship fitted AA system instead of CAMM?
Wouldn't 6 low-end ships be able to take on 2, maybe 3 standing commitments? I think that 16 high-end frigates and destroyers would be just about enough if they could be purely focused on task group escort duties and the Persian Gulf.
With six ships it is safe to assume two standing tasks can be supported enduringly, with 3 ships for each task: Deployed ship, In-Training ship, Rest and Maintenance ship and crew.Delete
And that is before we start thinking about the possibility of basing ships away from home for periods of a couple of years and flying crews out to them, instead of sailing frigates back and forth to and from the Uk every six to eight months.
This could further improve the coverage that is possible to obtain with the same number of hulls.
It does seem that 6 ships for forward deployment could keep more on station than we currently achieve with our frigates and destroyers, I guess that's the whole point of such a move!Delete
Do you think LMM would work as a ship mounted AA weapon? Would it be capable enough?
I think LMM would be a bit too limited. The Navy is considering it, but more in anti-fast boat swarm role, with a cluster of 7 missiles attached to the DS30M light gun mount.Delete
Fair enough, is that the 'Sea Hawk Sigma' concept? I love the look of that!Delete
Yes, that's it. There were other concepts investigated, on the same architecture. I think one even involved fitting a CVR7 rocket pod, as used on the Apache, but it might have never left the paper.Delete
The LMM solution was test fired in live demonstrations, instead.
Yes, seems like a good idea. We would get at least 3 more "hulls in the water" out of it and there would be a reasonable balance between the two types of ship.
I would like more T26s to push for a renewed partnership with FPDA navies.ReplyDelete
Exchanging T26 for OPV is a good subject.
But I would be careful, I wouldn’t want to below 12 T26. Remember having a T26 on patrol, does not mean it can’t join at task force. If you go down to 10, that would mean you could only have six available at any one time, at least one being in dry dock for maintenance, and maybe 3 with the crew on leave. But I would be happy to exchange 1 T26 for 3 OPV, say an improved river class, similar to HMS Clyde.
I don’t really see any need for anything more than a Clyde. It has all the capabilities that a patrol platform needs, maybe you could add a Starstreak system for air defence, but I would not want anything else to start making it to expensive. Remember adding a hanger and helicopter means adding another helicopter platform to the fleet. Adding weapons that the RN doesn’t operate at the moment, means another system that you need to carry spares for and ammunition.
OPV, keep them simple, keep them cheap, and keep them on station.