20 January 2010: Aviation Week
By Douglas Barrie
LONDON — While the British Royal Navy’s senior officer goes out of his way to say they are not at “loggerheads,” the fault lines are already being drawn between the two oldest services in the run-up to London’s Strategic Defense Review (SDR).
With an SDR certain to begin immediately post-election, the British military is now waging a hearts and minds campaign among politicians. A general election is to be held no later than the end of May. The defense budget is under considerable pressure, and there is widespread anticipation of cuts in the equipment program, and perhaps in the overall size of the armed forces.
The debate is fundamental to the future shape of the U.K.’s military capability, and for its relationship with key allies.
Adm. Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, responding to a speech by the British Army chief, Gen. David Richards, says: “Whilst there is a desire to show a split between us and feed a frenzy of ‘the chiefs are again at loggerheads,’ we are not. We are trying to pursue a clear, well-articulated debate on what defense means. Yes, there is going to have to be differences, his prioritization is going to be different to mine.”
Richards is advocating recasting the British military around the kind of war it is now fighting in Afghanistan. His trade-off is to reduce high-end platforms for more boots on the ground.
Richards argues that basically the armed forces are ill-configured for the kind of wars they now face. In a speech on “Future Conflict And Its Prevention” at the International Institute for Strategic Studies Jan. 18, he told the audience: “Our defense establishment has not yet fully adapted to the security realities of the post-Cold War world and this complex and dangerous new century.”
For Richards: “Operating among, understanding and effectively influencing people requires mass — numbers — whether this is ‘boots on the ground,’ riverine and high-speed littoral warships, or UAVs, transport aircraft and helicopters. If one equips more for this type of conflict while significantly reducing investment in higher-end warfighting capability, suddenly one can buy an impressive amount of ‘kit.’”
Richards also said that “I am emphatically not advocating getting rid of all such equipment,” but he is in favor of getting rid of some of it.
Stanhope, giving a speech Jan. 19, said: “For now, Afghanistan remains our main effort.
But at the same time, the world is an uncertain place, characterized by a variety of current and future trends that can quickly generate new threats to our security and the U.K.’s wider national interests.
“We need to ensure that we, as a nation, have the strategic flexibility to deal not just with Afghanistan, but also the broad range of other threats and challenges to our national interests today and in the future…. Afghanistan… is not the only game in town. We must look beyond Afghanistan.”
The Royal Air Force, for the moment, appears to be keeping its powder dry, at least in the public domain.
