House of Commons - Re-thinking defence to meet new threats

Re-thinking defence to meet new threats - Defence Contents

4 Rebuilding conventional capacity to deter an advanced military nation

Maritime surveillance

The recent appearance of Russian submarines in UK coastal waters, for example, has re-emphasised the UK gap in maritime surveillance capacity, outlined in our 2012 Report.[53] The Secretary of State explained that a plan had been put in place in 1996 for 21 Nimrod aircraft to be in operation by 2003 but that the incoming Government in 2010 had

64. In its response to our Report, the Government clarified that it:

65. But as Peter Roberts has remarked this is a substantial capability gap since:

66. Maritime surveillance remains a crucial gap in the capabilities of the Armed Forces with extremely serious implications for the protection of other capabilities within the Armed Forces. Bridging this critical capability gap must be a very high priority for the next Strategic Defence and Security Review.

CBRN and BMD

67. Next, given that Russia retains large quantities of Chemical, Biological, and Radiological weapons, the UK and its allies should be required to rebuild their capacity in Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear training among all their conventional forces.

68. Such CBRN warfare training—which was standard for all conventional forces in the 1980s—has ceased to be so. Restoring it would involve not simply a change to training, but a change to the threat assessment and doctrine, underlying the training. (The SDSR was again focused on 'chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack by terrorists;". "An attack on the UK or its Overseas Territories by another state or proxy using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons" was identified only as a tier 2 risk to the country). [57]

69. Russia has announced a program of heavy investment in its nuclear capability and it military doctrine provides for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. The UK should, therefore, also provide for ballistic missile defence. Current US plans for BMD, focus on continental Europe. The UK would need to decide whether and how to procure its own solution—and this has considerable resource implications.

Royal Navy

70. The 50 frigates and destroyers, which the Royal Navy possessed in 1990 were reduced to 23 by 2010, and have now been reduced to 19. The Secretary of State, however, emphasised that this was in line with the Future Force 2020 planning:

It is important to recognise that we are fulfilling our commitments. Of course, there is always more that you can do. […] but we are fulfilling our basic commitments with the 19 frigates and destroyers that we have. And we have only just seen enter into service the last of the T-45s, HMS Duncan, which was a part of the NATO summit.[58]

71. A table illustrating the reduction in major warship numbers since 1990 is provided below:[59]
Figure 4: Major Warship numbers 1990-2012

Source: Save the Royal Navy

72. The MOD has taken much comfort in the fact that although the total number had been reduced, the quality is much improved. In the words of Peter Watkins, Director General Security Policy:

I […] remember the days of 42 destroyers and frigates. Indeed, we used to talk about 50. I think it is fair to say that some of them were pretty ancient. Many of them were unserviceable most of the time, so what we have moved to is a smaller, but much more capable and reliable fleet. We can be more sure that they are available if they are needed.

73. It was further assumed that they could defend themselves well against enemy attack. In Peter Watkins' words, the ships, in comparison to their predecessors "are also considerably better armed […]. I think we can manage the risk".[60]

74. The planning assumption appeared to be that none of these ships will be lost, and all will remain serviceable. In the words of the Secretary of State:

75. Lord Astor of Hever, the Defence Minister, has clarified:

76. This answer implies that the planning assumption is for 0% attrition. In other words, in the 19 strong frigate and destroyer fleet there is no spare capacity to meet unexpected demands or breakdowns or to cope with the loss of ships to hostile action. This partially reflects the fact that SDSR 2010 was conceived at a time when the expected enemies (insurgents or terrorists of an Afghan or Iraqi type) were not expected to have a navy, (and certainly not vessels capable of sinking Royal Naval ships).

77. As Lord West of Spithead, former First Sea Lord, however, has argued the MoD decision to reduce the size of the frigate and destroyer fleet should have factored in loss rates in complex war-fighting operations. This is particularly true, if the fleet was to act as a conventional deterrent to an advanced military state such as Russia.

78. We do not find the statement that no frigates and destroyers have been lost since the four lost in the Falklands War encouraging, since the Falklands War was the last conflict fought with another Navy. We do not believe that the previous vessels were as inferior as the MOD implies, or that the lessons-learned exercises or new armaments would be sufficient to guarantee security of the new generation of vessels against another conventional attack. Numbers matter, if for no other reason than that it is impossible to be in two places at once. Possessing only 19 frigates and destroyers means, by definition, that the Royal Navy will only be able to show a presence in a limited number of naval theatres. We see logic in Lord West's argument that the Royal Navy needs at least two more Type 45s on the basis that there is no provision for the loss of ships on war fighting operations.[63] Furthermore, there would be a strong rationale for expanding the frigate force to 16 (restoring 3 out of the 4 cuts of 2010). This would provide for a more balanced fleet with greater redundancy.

Carriers

79. In 2002, a decision was made to procure two aircraft carriers. This again followed the logic of a focus on 'intervention operations': the fundamental concept behind the carriers being the ability to deploy air power at a time and place of our choosing, rather than relying on allies to provide land basing. But the carriers are not expected to reach full operational capability until 2026, and there is as yet no clear evidence how substantial the capability will be even then.

80. After a period when it seemed the second carrier would not be brought into service, the Prime Minister announced at the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales that the new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, would indeed by supplemented by a second carrier, HMS Prince of Wales:

81. Again, however, a two carrier fleet (with only one available at any one time) relies on an attrition calculation close to zero, assuming that adversaries would not have the capacity to sink the carrier then at sea, and with it a very large proportion of our latest jets. We do not believe that given the very high proportion of the overall Defence budget currently absorbed by the carrier commitment, that it would make sense to press for an additional carrier battle group. But the UK would have to be very cautious about placing excessive reliance on a single carrier, in a confrontation with an advanced military nation.

82. In the meantime, there will be a further five years before the new carriers enter service. The last carriers were decommissioned in 2010 and the plan is to have ships and planes ready by 2018 with initial operating capability by 2020.[65]

83. Significant questions remain over what the 'full carrier strike capability' of these carriers will be when they enter service. Each carrier is designed to accommodate up to 36 F-35s. But the MoD has so far agreed to purchase only eight F35s with more to be purchased in due course. Each F-35 is estimated to cost in excess of £100 million, implying a cost of many billions to equip the carriers. As Admiral Zambellas clarified:

84. The Committee was able to receive no further undertakings on how many planes would be purchased. The Secretary of State said that the MoD had deliberately not confirmed the total number that would be likely to be bought for commercial reasons.[67] Air Chief Marshal Pulford told us that no decisions had been made about the number of F35s that would fly off the carriers and decisions would be taken as part of the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review.[68] In response to our question about how many extra aircraft would be bought given the deployment of the second carrier, Air Marshal Hillier told us that this decision would be made in the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review,[69] but used the phrase an 'operational squadron', without specifying numbers:[70]

85. It is difficult not to conclude that the inability to give even a ballpark estimate on the number of aircraft, implies uncertainty about whether sufficient funding will be available in the next SDSR to achieve comprehensive carrier strike capability. Supporting these carriers requires very substantial capacity in refuelling and resupply—and the resupply vessels travel much more slowly than the carriers. This entails the development of a very complex carrier battle group, which would need to be resourced. All this has a profound impact on the 'readiness' and 'sustainability' of the carrier package.

86. In reflection of this, our witnesses could not clarify whether the Prime Minister's commitment to '100% availability' was to the carrier hulls and manning alone, or whether it also applied to the full carrier strike capability, including associated aircraft and ships, or what level of readiness was actually envisaged. Air Chief Marshal Pulford, for example, emphasised that the Prime Minister had committed to 100% capability of "an aircraft carrier, either at sea or at readiness" rather than 100% "carrier strike capability at sea or at readiness".[72]

87. When, we asked the Secretary of State whether the carriers would be adequately protected, he recognised that the decision to maintain the two carriers had resource implications, both in the total number of ships required by the Royal Navy and indeed in personnel, but he told us that these implications would be addressed in the spending review in 2015.[73]

88. We are concerned that bringing the second carrier into service will involve very considerable additional costs, additional manpower, extra aircraft and the considerable amount of support and protection needed to make it viable. It makes little sense to maintain an additional aircraft carrier without aircraft to fly off it and the necessary aircraft, surface ships and submarines to protect it. In response to this Report, the Government should set out its assessment of the consequences of its decision to bring the second carrier into service for the other capabilities that will be required by the UK Armed Forces. It should also set out the consequences for the personnel required in the Royal Navy. If there is to be no increase in Royal Navy manpower, then it should set out how the second carrier will be manned and what effect the manning of the second carrier will have on the rest of the fleet.

Army

89. General Sir Peter Wall has also argued that "we need to ensure that we can field a resilient land force at the divisional level, which means stemming the creeping obsolescence of the Army's manoeuvre capabilities."[74] This requirement would include restoring specialist engineering skills such as wide wet water bridging capacity, providing close-air support from the Army headquarters (rather than two-levels removed), artillery capacity, helicopter Forward Air Refuelling Positions, and the whole practice of armoured warfare.

90. All this would require substantial investment in C4 ISTAR, and battlefield communications to support the manoeuvre environment in a complex battle space (for example a Russian military with jammers, cyber-capacity, advanced air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, and other capabilities not available to lightly-armed insurgents).

91. And deterring Russian land operations on its borders in Europe would require a much more significant commitment of heavy armour. Professor Cornish suggested that the UK would have to give up the idea that it might have a "serious heavy armour role in a major conflict in Europe", noting that this would have to be left to other Allies.[75] He added,

if you have got one or two armoured regiments then, really, getting them to Europe and deploying them into Europe, and making use of them in this notional […] scenario of an armoured manoeuvre battle in Europe seems to me to be almost too difficult for the UK to contemplate any more.[76]

92. Our witnesses were opposed to freezing the redeployment of the last British Army brigade from Germany back to the UK. Edward Lucas from the Economist questioned the value of continuing to station UK troops in Germany and suggested that there might be other places in Europe where they could be better deployed.[77] General Sir Richard Shirreff, former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, argued that

93. However, General Lord Dannatt disagreed arguing that the UK should retain a force of 3,000 troops in Germany.[79] The Committee believes that, in the context of the next Defence and Security Review it may be worth re-assessing the costs and benefits of withdrawal from Germany.

Royal Air Force

94. Alongside a comprehensive carrier-strike capability, the UK need to sustain sufficient combat air squadrons to undertake future contingencies, which go beyond its current NATO air-policing, reassurance measures in the Baltic, and precision-bombing in Iraq. Again, the number of Royal Air Force planes is at a historic low. It has been reduced from 33 squadrons in 1990 to just seven now. It is increasingly difficult for the Royal Air Force to mobilise critical mass in the air. There has also been an increasing focus on helicopters and fast jets, leaving a potential capability gap for a cheaper, more flexible platform for light air-support activities in a counter-insurgency context (the US equivalent would be an AT-6).

95. More fundamentally, though serious thought needs to be invested in the new strategy, to take into account the changes in technology in air power. The planning for the Royal Air Force was conducted on the assumption of operations against adversaries who did not possess advanced air defences. This provided the assumption of continuing operations—such as those currently conducted in Iraq—in which Tornadoes operate in conjunction with Reaper (the Remotely Piloted Air System). As Professor Sabin, however, has pointed out, the RAF is now likely to be facing an enemy with more advanced air defences than have been encountered in Afghanistan:

96. In general, SDSR 2010 was written when control of the air was taken for granted, allowing the Air Force to choose when and where to apply force. Afghanistan—a relatively benign air environment—did not require maintaining the training for more testing operational environments. But adversaries such as Russia would offer a much more considerably contested air environment-particularly given their strength in air to air and surface to air missiles. Our current technological advantage could be eroded very rapidly.

97. The UK is to be congratulated on the lead it has taken—with France—in developing a fifth generation "Future Combat Air System" and on its awareness that technology is increasingly blurring the lines between manned and unmanned platforms, between platforms and missiles, and between platforms and information systems, and that 'Big Data' links and communications pose astonishing new challenges in integration.

98. These are only examples of the kinds of capability, which may be required to provide firmer conventional deterrent against an advanced military state such as Russia. But even this short list—maritime surveillance aircraft, CBRN capabilities, Ballistic Missile Defence, a comprehensive carrier strike capability, more Royal Navy vessels and Royal Air Force planes, and enhanced divisional manoeuvre and armoured capacity in the military and possible pre-positioning of troops in continental Europe, will require a significantly increased Defence budget.

53 Article: The Independent, MoD asks for American help in searching for Russian submarine near Scotland, 8 January 2015 Back

54 Q 241 Back

55 Defence Committee, Future Maritime Surveillance, Fifth Special Report of Session 2012-13, HC 827 Back

56 Q 70 Back

57 Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) defence units form part of the "land component" of the Deployed Force under Future Force 2020 and capabilities for CBRN detection, identification and monitoring will also form an element of Future Force 2020 for the RAF. The Strategic Defence and Security Review pages 21 and 26. Back

58 Q 268 Back

59 Article: Save the Royal Navy Back

60 Q 269 Back

61 Q 269 Back

62 HL Debate, 24 April 2012, col WA385 Back

63 Article: The News, The Royal Navy needs at least two more Type 45 destroyers, 26 April 2012 Back

64 Prime Minister statement to House of Commons, 8 September 2014, col 654 Back