- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
UK 'took a punt' on carrier strike gap
19 April 2012The government "took a punt" when it chose to leave the UK without carrier strike capability for nearly a decade following 2010's Strategic Defence and Security Review, the head of the Royal Navy has said.
First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope is reported to have made the comments about the decision to scrap both the Harrier jump jet and HMS Ark Royal while answering questions after a speech at the 'Navy is the Nation' conference this week.
An article in Portsmouth newspaper The News quoted Admiral Stanhope as saying: "It's a punt. It's a guess, recognising that if carrier strike was required we would have other nations to call upon to support us through those operations.
"…notwithstanding the obvious exception," he said, apparently referring to the potential difficulties of asking other nations for help should The Falkland Islands be seized by Argentina.
The SDSR process relied on military chiefs and ministers taking a "predictable punt" at the military challenges the UK was likely to face by 2020, he went on to say, adding that Libya was the first major example of an 'unpredictable' military action that may have benefited from an aircraft carrier being available.
"The decision was made to take this hiatus in carrier strike... then the following year Libya turned up, which was an unpredictable conflict," he said.
"The reality is that in a perfect state we would have kept the carriers but we could not afford to. That was the balance of judgement in terms of the risk that was taken."
However, he reportedly justified the decision due to the pressing need to bring the Ministry of Defence budget and the nation's finances under control.
"A nation that is weak economically is very weak in its security context," he said.
HAVE YOUR SAY
19 April 2012
"A nation that is weak economically is very weak in its security context," Adm Stanhope said.
I have to disagree with this comment. No-one would argue that USA is weak in its security context, yet it is massively indebted to China through its fiscal deficit. In my opinion, the reverse is true, a country that is weak throughout its security capability risks being seen to be vulnerable economically and militarily e.g. The Falklands. If UK had a strong, balanced force structure, Argentina's leaders would never dream of making the threats they have against us.
AW Employee - Yeovil
19 April 2012
"Unpredictable conflict" huh? No disrespect to the First Sea Lord, but, I would be interested to hear his list of predictable ones.
Richard - Edinburgh
19 April 2012
Carriers to one side the Royal Navy really does now need to concentrate on two things. Firstly it needs to increase the number of surface combatants by at least a half dozen to a dozen. Buying additional Type 26s beyond those already foreseen is unlikely to be affordable hence it probably needs to look at a second rate ship, such as corvettes, to fill the gap. Secondly a concerted effort is needed to regenerate a full brigade landing capability for the Royal Marines and ensure that an amphibious ship building programme is put in place that allows this to happen.
PS If the nation is so economically weak then why are we dramatically increasing the spend on overseas aid at the expense of defence, education, etc.?
Pugg - Blighty
19 April 2012
Quite the contrary could be argued AW.
UK is to strong for a weakened argentina to militarily do anything. Therefore the only course of action is to mobilize economic action against a financially weakened state. That is the only way they can attack us. Then UK reviews our own waste of money on Falkland defences and decides to cut them and negotitate the Falklands away.
If we are economically strong, we can afford more defence without raising percentage of GDP. We are less prone to attack economically from argentina.
So from that and all defence related issues I would have to say we need to put our economic recovery first.
BUT, that does not mean we do not invest in defence manufacturing. Indeed it may be that investment in our own forces lands us with Jobs in defence, high technology and exports in a lucrative market. Sadly though these strategies will take years to play out, and our politicians and feeble public need answers in 4-5 years or we replace.
Degradable - UK
19 April 2012
Admiral Stanhope is also quoted in the Portsmouth News as saying this.
'Therefore, reshaping that national ambition in terms of what the nation can afford is fundamental.'
The problem is they are proposing to reshape the carriers rather than the aircraft it carries. Money saved by delaying the F35, could pay for the carriers to be built as fully fledged CATOBAR carriers, thus enabling future air group upgrades past and beyond manned aircraft.
If the retro grade step is taken of opting for F35b, which does not fully comply with the RAF specifications, then the carriers will need further extensive modifications at a later date to carry future unmanned platforms, Costing even more than doing the job properly in the first place.
I can not understand why we dont lease F18 e/f, at least in the short term, instead of neutering the carriers.
tim dainton - romsey, hampshire
19 April 2012
It will be interesting to read what he thinks when he has retired. As serving 1SL he is bound to tow the line.
Graham - High Wycombe
19 April 2012
@ Pugg-Blighty
Couldn't agree more with your comments, carriers aside as you say, we need to enhance amphibious capability, a replacement for 'Ocean' should be under urgent consideration. No doubt HMG will endeavour to utilise one of the carriers in this (dual)role but a dedicated ship, designed for the purpose should be a priority, a LHD like the Juan Carlos/Canberra Class would seem a very versatile choice. Better to provide 'humanitarian aid' in a practical way, rather than doling out taxpayers money to frequently corrupt foreign powers!!
Hereman - Wirral, England
19 April 2012
Who or what made us economically weak in the first place? Politicians? Bankers? or a combination of both.
Who or what made us weak in a security context? Politicians? Service chiefs who were (forced into?) fighting their own corner rather than taking a strategic view? or civil servants who can't write a contract let alone balance the books? or a combination of all?
Strange how I mention politicians twice is it not?
Norman - UK
19 April 2012
"The reality is that in a perfect state we would have kept the carriers but we could not afford to"
Utter tosh First Sea Lord. You are sounding like a politician again, like many other top brass.
If we could not afford to how come we spend £14 billion on foreign aid? And give China hundreds of millions as part of a EU scheme to plant more trees?
Meanwhile the RN has no carrier strike.
Unacceptable, and if more people actually cared, which I'm afraid they do not as most are only interested in celebs and whatever benefits they can get, then amateur politicians which infest all parties might actually put defence of the realm high on their list.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford
20 April 2012
Totally unrealistic view by many I am realising.
Norman -UK yes have a dig at Bankers & Politicians. Then look at the sorry state of contradiction and confusion amongst us with regards what should military have. We enjoy this topic and try to understand it. Bankers make money... They will and have done over the years and whilst UK Plc benfited from spending sales of Aston Martins and other quality products as they bonuses are handed out I saw no complaints... Tax revenue from Banks was higher than Oil .... So they made a mistake, they will pay it back and UK plc now owns a significant proportion of a lucrative industry.
Politicians, well are they any more different than me or you.. I would like everyone to say "Agreed to my post, I really don`t want it flamed..."
It is vital that economy is sorted. It is vital we stop our looking back at empire. We are a diminishing power. But we need to match up with our chosen commitments. Question is what are they...
As for foreign aid, totally correct, if it is used as aid and not expected to be a bribe.
Carriers, should be F35C as we can then extend a policy of all air able to launch from land or carrier (Within reason).
Degradable - UK
20 April 2012
"Took a punt????" Oh, please no...
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is British Politics, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Michael - Hertfordshire
20 April 2012
'Short sighted' is probably a description most of us would apply to HMG on many things but especially defence. Small wonder when Chancellor 'George Gideon Oliver Osborne's initials spell 2/3 of the name 'Magoo'!! It all makes sense now!
Hereman - Wirral, England
20 April 2012
Degadable. Yes, carriers should be CATOBAR with a full complement of F35C ... be it 'JFH' or FAA. Personally I would prefer the latter. There are those that would accuse me on being Navy centric. However, much of my life was spent in 'joinery/combined' roles and I well understand both Army and RAF thinking too. It appals me when it is evident that 'people' appear not to be able to work together to get it right at the start!
Norman - UK
20 April 2012
@ Michael - Hertfordshire
Nice adaptation of Shelley's 'Ozymandias' and very fitting!!
Hereman - Wirral, England
20 April 2012
Got to be honest, I won't rest comfortably until at least one of the new carriers is in FULL operation and we've stopped messing about with the type of aircraft to be flown.
Peter Hall - Worksop, UK
21 April 2012
The decision to decommission the Harriers was probably motivated by a desire to boost the case for buying F35s for the RAF and the Fleet Air Arm. We can really only speculate as to what kind of behind-the-scenes shenanigans caused the MOD and the Defence Board to descend to that level of thinking. This is one problem that can arise from a lack of transparency in defence policy making and defence procurement. In any case, it was clearly a mistake. The Harrier is still a useful aircraft, better in some roles than the F35, and it costs a lot less to operate.
J. Southworth - University of Hull