Responsible changes

Friday, July 03, 2009

The Institute for Public Policy Research wants to see sweeping changes to the defence procurement programme, but not everyone agrees with the reasons for or nature of the cuts, writes Patrick Macgill.


Fundamental choices are facing defence procurement after the next strategic defence review (SDR), a group of defence analysts and prominent former politicians have said in a new report out by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). But their arguments over the way in which the MoD procures and uses capabilities in the future has met staunch resistance in some quarters.

In "Shared Responsibilities: A national security strategy for the UK, the former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown and the former Defence Secretary Lord Robertson, alongside a number of prominent officials from the political and defence sectors, argue that the MoD simply cannot go on as is. It must change its ambitious procurement programme in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century, the report argues.

Committee members, which included Lord Guthrie, the former chief of the defence staff, used the report to call for a reprioritisation of capabilities and a reduced commitment to conventional war fighting capabilities.

The report claims that it is not calling for cuts to the Armed Forces' equipment and procurement, rather a "re-balancing" of it.

But however the committee members word a review of defence needs and capabilities, cuts appear to be a necessity.

"This re-examination should explore all viable options for capability downgrading and quantity reductions as well as for complete cancellation of some equipment programmes," the report says.

Since Britain is committed to NATO, the EU and the "special relationship" with the US, cuts would be easier to make in areas where another member of the alliance already has that capability.

As a result, Britain's Armed Forces would undergo a massive transformation, one that would see it forced to rely more on allies in all areas and types of capabilities.

While the committee stressed that it was not advocating specific cuts, it recommended a review of programmes overwhelmingly related to the Royal Navy, including the two new aircraft carriers, the Joint Strike Fighter, the Type 45 Destroyers, the Astute class submarines and the Trident replacement.

In December 2008, then Defence Secretary John Hutton called for procurement to focus on current operations first and foremost. This does not bode well for the Navy and the committee appears to be adopting that approach.

The committee denied that it was suggesting that sea power is no longer a priority, rather that the Navy like the other services must look at today's challenges. The era of open sea warfare is over according to the report.

"How can the aircraft carriers deal with these pirates in the Gulf of Aden?," Lord Guthrie asked.

"Does the Navy really want to get locked up in two aircraft carriers when dealing with these kind of threats. I think this is something the Navy needs to look at."

Lord Ashdown alleges that a £9bn "black hole" exists in the procurement budget, far higher than the £1bn-£2bn deficit that most defence analysts and publications, including this one, believe exists. With that in mind, the committee argues that these capabilities are not the best use of a limited defence budget, nor do they help the UK become a better partner in its alliances abroad.
The committee advocates a 21st century Armed Forces. One that is technologically advanced and relies on the skills of highly trained individuals more often than high profile pieces of defence procurement.

So what exactly would the Armed Forces look like if the IPPR's report came to fruition? To begin with, more C4ISTAR capabilities. Advanced weapons systems will be of little use if the Forces do not know how to use their resources to direct a response or attack against an enemy.

Helicopters and heavy lift aircraft, which there are blatant shortages of in Afghanistan, would also receive large amounts of funding under the IPPR's defence budget vision. This could mean that the troubled A400M programme survives

There would be a emphasis on expanding the Special Forces as well. In a counter insurgency campaign where the identity and location of the enemy is unclear most of the time, the Armed Forces need more specialised troops who can infiltrate the local population, gather intelligence and target high value insurgents.

As the threat of cyber warfare grows, so does the need to respond to it. The committee members are all in agreement that the MoD must have the ability not only to deter cyber attacks on their systems, but also to launch offensive attacks.

"It is nice if we can afford lots of tanks, ships and aircraft, but we can't. We have to make choices in those areas in order to preserve our ability to generally transform the Armed Forces, not to just preserve what we have but to be able to move from one era to another. We haven't done that," Professor Michael Clarke, chairman of RUSI said in regards to the committee's vision of the Armed Forces.

But not everyone would welcome such moves. Cutting many high profile procurement programmes would hurt the defence industry and undoubtedly lead to massive cuts in the defence budget since so many expensive programmes would no longer be required.

The Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) accused the IPPR's report of "missing the point."

Commander John Muxworthy, the chief executive of the UK National Defence Association (UKNDA), went further, saying that the report was "barking up the wrong tree."

Muxworthy and UKNDA are staunch proponents of the MoD receiving more money in the defence budget, not less, arguing that the defence of the realm is every nation's first priority.

"The IPPR report is fundamentally flawed. It starts from the basic assumption that Britain can no longer afford a full-spectrum Armed Forces capability and that we should therefore scale back our military, give up on Afghanistan and cancel a whole tranche of Defence programmes.

"In our view, what Britain cannot afford to do is risk making the swinging cuts that the IPPR proposes. If we do our military will be more thinly stretched and our country more vulnerable to external threats," Muxworthy said.

A smaller more agile military and a more integration into a European defence alliance; this is what the IPPR is ultimately calling for. Whether it could work remains to be seen, but the IPPR has at the very least re-opened the mainstream debate on defence procurement and the size of the Armed Forces.