Forces need 'fundamental re-think'

Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Army must turn away from Cold War thinking and embrace the type of modern warfare troops have experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq, the future head of the Army has said.

Speaking at RUSI's Land Warfare conference, General Sir David Richards, commander in chief, land command, and the next chief of the general staff, called for a "fundamental rethink" in the way the Armed Forces is structured so that it can fight a successful campaign in Afghanistan.

The Forces must stop trying to "do a bit of everything" or risk "failure" he told delegates on the second day of the conference.

"We cannot go back to the fighting that we might have done 10 years ago when it was still tanks, fast jets, fleet escorts that dominated the doctrine of the three Services."

In short, Sir David argued that the era of fast moving open battlefield wars was over. Although Britain should always be prepared for a state v. state conflict, it should be ready first and foremost for a counter-insurgency campaign. Fighter jets, advanced warships and new tanks will do little to deter an insurgency that exists in remote areas or built up urban centres.

This way of thinking must be applied to Afghanistan, Sir David argued.

"Afghanistan is a war; we just have not really understood it is a war," he said.

To succeed in Afghanistan the procurement model must continue to be overhauled to focus on helicopters, armoured vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

"Too often we still strive for a hugely expensive, 100 per cent solution or exquisite solution for some state-on-state war that risks being out of date before it comes into service," he said.

Afghanistan must also have more troops to maintain security. Without them, the populous will have nowhere to turn too but the insurgency.

Sir David is set to take over command of the Army in August.

HAVE YOUR SAY

Again it seems looking through the press that General Richards is going to be no different than the present incumbents when it comes to tribal warfare and protecting what he sees as his turf. He sees no use in such equipment as T45, CVF and fast jets. He would rather we became a COIN Army with hi tech weapons and lots of soldiers. Then you get figures banded about, £2 Billion, to what it is going to cost to buy all this new Army equipment so that the Army can fight its war in Afghanistan. My understanding was that these senior officers should also have the intelligence to look at the bigger picture and not just focus on a war the they may have previous experience. However in his case it doesn't look like it. He is correct in saying that you cannot fight all wars all the time with the best equipment but by only looking to defend his own service he fails to see that it is not always going to be ground forces at the fore front and we have to cost and prepare for the eventuality that some day a different conflict will involve different "golf clubs" and that if our "golf bag" isn't sufficiently stocked we could get caught short. When you have this tribal warfare going on things like the PAC report on Type 45 just heightens their scorn when it comes to the other services. He has to remember thought that to date after spending £535 Million on FRES (BOXER-PIRANHA V) that the Army still do not have a product. At least the Royal Navy can say they have 6 ships. He has to look at his own service first before he goes and attacks the other two services and their "cold war" legacy equipment. £535 Million! On nothing. They still have yet to put together a clear concise requirements document they just know they want it and it is imperative to the Army that they get it. How can it be imperative if they still don't know what it is going to be? Or exactly what they want? He seems that desperate that he is will to give up 1800 infantry soldiers in cuts to save money. However he knows that in the current political climate it would be very difficult for the MoD to say whilst we have a war going on in Afghanistan and we are short of troops in theatre we are going to cut those very same troops. Now I didn't say he was silly. He has obviously done his homework and learnt his politics. He knows that things like Type 42 with its large cost and old missile system could be cut and that money diverted to his TLB because he believes his is the greater need. A view that he is entitled to and a view that he should make in committee. He shouldn't grand stand at RUSI events making a case at the expense of the other two services. Why? Simple. Those other two services are going to come straight back at him and defend their own corner by making their own speeches....hang on, yep they have done that already. So what you have is a very undignified spat between the service heads when what they are supposed to be doing in providing trained men and serviceable equipment to PJHQ so that they can be deployed overseas. Just remember £535 million, you could buy a T45 for that!
Lee Hannaford - London

The current operation this past week in Helmand saw us using American helicopters because we still after 7 years do not have enough in the field, or on order, why is this? Who is responsible for this? Which Minister? It is about time someone did something and fast..
John - London

When are the defence chiefs going to realise that service infighting only benefits the Treasury and a Government intent on cost, rather than treat led scenarios. They need to pool their resources and fight cuts in defence spending as a single entity.

All three services need extra money and Messers Stirrup, Trophy, Dannett and Bland and their successors should remember the old saying, "together we stand, divided we fall"

tim dainton - romsey

RELATED NEWS

Forces need 'fundamental re-think'

HAVE YOUR SAY