Read more posts and click here - ![]()
HMS Illustrious:
the Navy has looming manpower problems and too few ships Photo: EPA
By Alan West5:04PM GMT 21 Dec 2013Comments137 Comments
Defence is in urgent need of extra funding, as we are perilously close to having a hollowed-out Royal Navy. Such was the stark warning by Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), in his annual lecture at the Royal United Services Institute last Wednesday. His concern about the lack of national will to commit appropriate military force was absolutely correct. So, too, was his snapshot of a fragmented world with growing asymmetric threats and vulnerabilities beyond the traditional state-on-state paradigm.
Regarding the employment of the Army post-Afghanistan, we should not bow to the “use them or lose them” principle. I was left feeling that the Army was searching for a future role. This can be dangerous if it means we get involved in areas that are not of primary interest to the UK. The nation needs an Army, but it doesn’t have to be fully employed on operations all the time.
His point on “hollowing out” seemed to suggest that the military, particularly the Navy, is prioritising spending on new equipment over the manpower and training necessary to operate that kit. Indeed, he referred to “exquisite” equipment, which I found bizarre. Our military equipment is complicated and sophisticated but not exquisite. Perhaps he meant “extravagant”. I cannot think of any current naval platforms that are profligate in that sense. Lessons have been learnt after cases in the past where more was demanded than required. Nowadays, military equipment for all three Services is rigorously designed to meet the requirement.
The CDS also said there are too many “major” projects under way and that these are ordered to bolster British industry rather than to meet our military needs. At best, this is simplistic. Our country needs a sovereign capability in a number of defence procurement areas and therefore we have to support national industries. We all want our procurement system to function better, but if the nation needs new frigates then by definition that will be a “major project”. In my view, it is vital to maintain a national warship design, update and build capability. It has to be ordered in the United Kingdom.
General Houghton is right, however, that the Royal Navy has looming manpower problems that are structural. If we run the second aircraft carrier, as all now agree should be done, we must address that issue and increase our numbers. All this demands an increase in money. We have too few ships as it is. Crew sizes have been pared down to ensure an efficient operation with the smallest number of men and women on board. There is simply no room for gaps in the ship’s company. There has to be enough funding not just to meet those manning levels but to have crews of the right specialisations who are fully trained.
By Alan West5:04PM GMT 21 Dec 2013Comments137 Comments
Defence is in urgent need of extra funding, as we are perilously close to having a hollowed-out Royal Navy. Such was the stark warning by Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), in his annual lecture at the Royal United Services Institute last Wednesday. His concern about the lack of national will to commit appropriate military force was absolutely correct. So, too, was his snapshot of a fragmented world with growing asymmetric threats and vulnerabilities beyond the traditional state-on-state paradigm.
Regarding the employment of the Army post-Afghanistan, we should not bow to the “use them or lose them” principle. I was left feeling that the Army was searching for a future role. This can be dangerous if it means we get involved in areas that are not of primary interest to the UK. The nation needs an Army, but it doesn’t have to be fully employed on operations all the time.
His point on “hollowing out” seemed to suggest that the military, particularly the Navy, is prioritising spending on new equipment over the manpower and training necessary to operate that kit. Indeed, he referred to “exquisite” equipment, which I found bizarre. Our military equipment is complicated and sophisticated but not exquisite. Perhaps he meant “extravagant”. I cannot think of any current naval platforms that are profligate in that sense. Lessons have been learnt after cases in the past where more was demanded than required. Nowadays, military equipment for all three Services is rigorously designed to meet the requirement.
The CDS also said there are too many “major” projects under way and that these are ordered to bolster British industry rather than to meet our military needs. At best, this is simplistic. Our country needs a sovereign capability in a number of defence procurement areas and therefore we have to support national industries. We all want our procurement system to function better, but if the nation needs new frigates then by definition that will be a “major project”. In my view, it is vital to maintain a national warship design, update and build capability. It has to be ordered in the United Kingdom.
General Houghton is right, however, that the Royal Navy has looming manpower problems that are structural. If we run the second aircraft carrier, as all now agree should be done, we must address that issue and increase our numbers. All this demands an increase in money. We have too few ships as it is. Crew sizes have been pared down to ensure an efficient operation with the smallest number of men and women on board. There is simply no room for gaps in the ship’s company. There has to be enough funding not just to meet those manning levels but to have crews of the right specialisations who are fully trained.
HMS Illustrious: