baldysblog.co.uk

Defence of the Realm is concerned with external military aggression against these islands or, the interests of the people of these islands which could involve us militarily far beyond our shores. As an island people with an extensive coastline, we need ships to both patrol and defend our territorial waters. The next question is whether we need a “Deep Water” Navy to project our interests beyond that and globally ? In fact, answering this question alone, dictates not just defence policy but also, defence procurement.

Global Reach

Whilst in the days of the “British Empire” a global naval presence was crucial because in effect, we were acting as a kind of global policeman plus had a far flung number of territorial interests, today this role is performed by the USA so this is no longer true for the UK. However that does not mean to say that we have no role to perform because we do in support of our most important ally which is the United States and stating this does not preclude independent action by the UK but does have an impact on force composition and a realistic assessment of what the UK can and should want to do in a “standalone” scenario.

When it comes to the two proposed Aircraft Carriers, it is hard to fathom any logic behind them in purely military terms to the UK and, when taken in the context of the Anglo/American Alliance, they are totally irrelevant. The plain truth is that there is no scenario whereby a British Government would deploy these ships in anger except alongside the Americans. The mistake in current thinking is to shape UK Naval forces as a kind of “6^th Fleet Lite” which is pointless, we should bring something “complimentary” to the table in terms of force structures and capabilities, a radical ‘other’ option for any Supreme Commander to deploy.

Alliances

Because I have published my views previously that the UK will inevitably leave the EU, it is important for anyone reading this to understand that in “discounting” any involvement of a military nature with EU forces, I am not making an “anti-EU” statement, rather more a practical observation and assessment of the realities.

The one thing that prevented another European War after 1945 was not the “Treaty of Rome” it was the stand off between NATO and the USSR during what we call, the “Cold War”. During those years, all the countries of the West, were clearly focused and united militarily and in theory, are still so today under the NATO banner, unfortunately events since the collapse of the Soviet Union tell a different story whether in Kosovo or Afghanistan. Without the tension and focus of the Cold War, NATO has ‘softened’ so that EU countries used in the past, to sheltering under the American nuclear umbrella, still underspend on defence and mainly lack the political will to deploy into hot war zones.

From a purely British perspective, any EU military deployment is highly unlikely if not, virtually impossible. NATO deployments will get some support from the Dutch, Danes and a few other of the smaller countries but not from the bigger ones such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The most likely pan national military alliance will rest with the “English Speaking” nations acting together in concert with anybody else who wishes to join in on a case by case basis.

Missions

We need to make it crystal clear, we have no “Missionary Zeal” in terms of exporting Democracy which should never be an aim of any UK Parliament. There maybe some cases but very few, where we might assist a population in overturning blatant oppression against them by their rulers but the lesson we must take from Iraq is that you cannot implant democracy inside a tribal culture and civilisation where the very concept is totally alien to them whether that be in the Middle East, Far East or black Africa.

Democracy is a great concept and reality but, each country must find its own path to that because inevitably it requires a ‘blood sacrifice’ as people in London on 7/7 or people in New York on 9/11 found out. I personally doubt that there is a Sunni or Shia in Iraq who would “die” in order for their opposite to be “free” under a common law.

In the case of Iraq the picture was muddied by bad intelligence but the simple fact is that however truly “idealistic” Americans may be and however pure their motives, “Freedom” is not a concept that could be understood in Iraq. Far better to have said that we wanted to ensure the continuing free flow of oil for the world economy even though Iraq could have the cash which, under a non-Saddam Government, could be ‘distributed’ differently, they might just have understood that.

Submarines as Delivery Systems

In terms of a UK Deep Water capability that requires an aggressive global reach for Britain, it will be submarine based, nuclear Trident missiles and if we need to deliver a lesser “punishment” such as cruise missiles we have the Astute class. As both are submarines, we would need surface vessels that are designed to support these two types of assets in action through replenishment in the field. Personally, I would rack up the production of Astute Class subs immediately with the aim of having 30 in service as soon as possible because there must be substantial savings to be made from such a commitment.

Surface Fleet

Mine Sweepers, Anti-Submarine, Coastline, Oil & Gas and Fisheries Protection are fairly obvious candidates but quite apart from coastal defence, keeping viable sea lanes open between the UK and the ‘New World’ is key to us supporting the US and ourselves. But unglamorous as this job may seem, in pursuit of this goal we can go a stage further and provide a particular ‘offensive’ option that might turn out to be really spectacular. I will develop this idea further in separate entries but although not specifically the “answer”, this picture of an unmanned aircraft called a Predator, is indicative of a different way of thinking.