Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-127)
AIR VICE
MARSHAL CHRIS
NICKOLS CBE, AND
MR MARTIN
HOWARD
17 JANUARY 2006
Q120 Mr Hancock: They were out of service
at the same time?
Air Vice Marshal Chris Nickols:
You have to bear in mind that the aircraft we are talking about
are Tri-Star aircraft that, for instance, carry 250 to 300 people,
and so if one of them does become unserviceable or, say, a couple
become unserviceable, the spare one you had, then you do end up
with quite a large quantity of people waiting while you fix the
aircraft before you can then move them. The stress on the air
transport fleet that he was talking about was caused by the surge
of change-over of troops, which of course in Iraq is nearly 8,000
troops.
Chairman: Can I repeat something that
Dai Havard has said? We will need to come back to this because
the Ministry of Defence has tried to be reassuring about lift.
I think this Committee is far from reassured.
Q121 Mr Havard: That is right. I am chasing
the clock here, so I was cutting down my questions. There are
a lot more questions I could have asked you about this. Other
people are going to deploy assets, I know, so it is not just British
assets that will be in there. There is the whole question about
the appropriateness of certain asssets that are going in as well,
some of which seem to be more related to pork-barrel politics
in America than they do about anything else, but we will come
back to all of that another day. The jets, the Harriers, the combat
support, is particularly important, not just simply for British
troops but for the whole of the ISAF operation and the counter-terrorism
operation. Currently we have the GR7s in Kandahar. The runway
is not finished. It is taking longer that the Great Wall of China,
it seems, in order to complete. As I understand it, the Harriers
are due to come out in the summer. This is where we have to ask
you a few questions about the Dutch. When I was in Kabul, the
F16s are in Kabul flying about; the Dutch have 16 of those. As
I understand it, if Dutch troops come, they have to bring their
own combat air support, and that is the F16s. The F16s are designed
to replace the Harriers to give overall air combat support, as
I understand it. What is going to be deployed? We have the Harriers
there for the initial period when the troops go in. What is going
to be the sustainability of combat air support—full stop?
Air Vice Marshal Chris Nickols:
The simple answer is that fixed-wing air support is subject to
the same force of generation process as any other asset that is
going in. Clearly, not every nation takes in its own fixed-wing
air support. As I have already said earlier, in broad terms, fixed-wing
air support is pretty inter-operable. The Harrier GR7s at the
moment are in Afghanistan, as you say, until the summer—mid-summer
I think it is—of 2006, but no decisions have been finalised
on the NATO force generation process and what air support will
be available beyond that. I would clearly say, of course, that
nationally we have to be absolutely sure that our troops on the
ground must receive the air support that they might need before
we will be happy to put them in there on the ground. If you like,
it is just another asset and we need to be absolutely sure that
we get the support that we need, whether that be UK aircraft or
other aircraft.
Q122 Mr Havard: The answer at the moment
is that you are reassured by that because the Harriers are there
for the initial period, but we do not know that that is going
to provide support in the longer term.
Air Vice Marshal Chris Nickols:
Of course, it is not always Harriers that provide air support.
It could be American aircraft or whatever. There are not just
UK aircraft in Afghanistan at the moment.
Q123 Mr Havard: So my sly fiver on a
few Tornadoes going out there later in the year might come to
fruition yet then? That was not a question. What assurances have
you had because you make the point, and you are quite right, that
it is not just the British who give close air support? The big
aviation assets in the country are obviously those of the US.
What discussions have you had with the US about some continued
support, as it were, given that they are changing their formation
of operations there? Operation Enduring Freedom is going to end;
that is not an oxymoron but it is going to transform into something
else; they are going to downsize to some degree or another. In
those sorts of circumstances, what discussions have you had with
the US that there will be continuing levels of support during
that period and in through the rest of the period that the ARC
is there through into 2007?
Air Vice Marshal Chris Nickols:
The simple answer is that we have to work through NATO because
it is a NATO plan and US forces will be assigned to NATO, just
as UK forces or any other nations' forces will be. The US will
fill quite a large proportion of the air requirement in that NATO
force generation process.
Q124 Mr Hamilton: You have indicated
that credibility is on the line on NATO. You have also indicated
that there are 50,000 police with a justice system that has been
developed by the Italians, which I find quite interesting. You
have 28,000 in the Army in Afghanistan. You have an increase in
suicide bombers. Pakistan has a problem, particularly as far as
bombers are concerned. The Dutch, and maybe some other nations,
have to decide in relation to whether they come in or not. We
have warlords which are governors in some cases and governors
who are warlords in other cases. We have the Taliban resurgence.
I am asking you a specific question, not about any of those factors
but about our own armed forces, so maybe we can get a straight
answer in relation to that. A lot of the things that we are talking
about in relation to Afghanistan are predicated on whether we
are able to reduce our armed forces in Iraq. If that does not
take place, are we going to be a position of being over-stretched,
recognising that we are going into a far more dangerous position
than British troops have already been in? My question to you is
quite clear but straightforward. If things do not work out the
way that we hope they will work out in other places and we can
release British troops and British forces, are we in a position
to take up the slack in relation to Afghanistan?
Mr Howard: In broad terms, yes,
we can. Chris can talk about some of the detail if you like. This
is a question we ask ourselves all the time. We are making planning
assumptions about how things might go in Iraq and how things might
go in Afghanistan. Like all plans, they may vary on contact with
reality. Throughout the process, the Secretary of State rightly
asks the same question. We have given him the assurance that we
can do both. That is not to say we can do both completely easily.
There will be areas of pressure as a result. The areas are likely
to be less in terms of strengths of infantry battalions or anything
like that but more in terms of the key enabling tasks. The two
that immediately occur to me will be medical support and intelligence
support, and so we will have to manage those difficulties. The
broad answer to your question is: yes, we can manage both.
Q125 Mr Lancaster: In order to achieve
both, what sacrifices will you have to make to the Harmony Guidelines
on back-to-back tours?
Mr Howard: It is difficult to
give an absolutely precise answer to that because there are so
many variables about that.
Q126 Mr Lancaster: Will there be any
sacrifices?
Mr Howard: I think that in certain
key trades there will be issues of pressure and issues on Harmony.
I have mentioned a couple of examples and there could be others.
These are not things which would prevent the deployment taking
place. It is a fact that the British Armed Forces have been very
busy for some years and that there are areas where Harmony Guidelines
have been breached. The Chiefs of Staff take a very close interest
in that and they charge a Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel)
to take measures to alleviate that. It is hard to say that this
trade will suffer this change because it will depend on, (a),
what happens in Iraq, and, (b), the precise nature of what we
deploy into Afghanistan. The point at which, for example, we take
over leadership of the brigade in the south of Afghanistan is
a variable which has not yet been nailed down.
Q127 Chairman: Which trade is most at
risk of having its Harmony Guidelines breached?
Mr Howard: Can I come back to
you with a precise answer on that? I do not think I could say
definitely one way or the other. Medical staff will probably be
high on my list but we will come back and give you a precise answer.
Chairman: There are one or two questions
which we would like to have asked you about provincial reconstruction
teams but, in view of the time, it would be best to write to you
about those, if that is all right. Unless anyone has any further
questions arising out of this, then I would simply say thank you
very much indeed, both of you, for coming along this morning and
for answering the questions to the extent that is permissible
and to which you are able.
|
