Category Archives: Military

Britain, Defence, Government, Military, United States

A replacement for the Nimrod. The search is on…

DEFENCE

Four years ago, Britain scrapped its Nimrod maritime surveillance aircraft. But the issue of whether an island nation needs a plane to patrol its waters remains.

The Ministry of Defence cancelled the Nimrod’s replacement as part of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), citing the need to cut costs. The decision, however, meant Britain lost a crucial ability to monitor the threat from foreign submarines in its territory.

There have been reports of Russian vessels mooring and sending sailors ashore to enjoy local hospitality – all without being tracked by the UK military, the security implications of which should be clear.

Some aspects of the Nimrod’s function have continued, using surface ships, the RAF’s E3D Sentry aircraft and helicopters.

But much of what the Nimrod was good at has been lost – particularly the ability to detect small objects on the sea’s surface, such as submarine periscopes.

That Britain has no suitable maritime patrol aircraft capability is viewed by some defence analysts as a ‘national disgrace’. As a minimum, Britain needs to be able to monitor what goes on within the UK search and rescue area – no small task given it covers 2m square miles of sea.

A typical mission for these aircraft lasts eight hours before refuelling is required.

However, if rumblings from within Whitehall and industry are to be believed the gap left by the Nimrod could soon be filled.

Prior to Philip Hammond leaving Defence to become Foreign Secretary in the recent UK Government reshuffle, Mr Hammond is said to have privately given ‘top priority’ to the project, insisting that it be contained within the 2015 SDSR.

Analysts estimate that plugging this gap will cost around £2bn. Once funding is assigned, it could go into the MoD budget cycle for 2016 with an aircraft in service by the end of the decade.

The MoD is keen to emphasise that the first question is just what is required. Only then can the machine and sensors that will provide the surveillance be considered. One idea is some form of multi-mission aircraft that can be used for maritime patrol, intelligence gathering, airborne command and control and even in some transport capacity.

The current favourite appears to be the P8 Poseidon made by US aerospace giant Boeing – effectively a militarised 737 passenger jet. Instead of seats, the P8 would be packed with sensors and equipment used to track submarines or missing surface ships.

British crewmen are already flying on the P8 aircraft to maintain their skills. As defence secretary, Mr Hammond also visited a P8 squadron in America and is said to have been impressed.

Other ideas include packing the fuselage of Lockheed Martin’s rugged C-130 Hercules transport aircraft with high-tech sensors and turning it into a maritime patrol specialist.

Northrup Grumman, another US defence firm, would like to see its drones used to monitor the ocean from high up and then send specialist reconnaissance aircraft in to check on possible discoveries closer to the surface.

Just how many aircraft will eventually be needed is another moot point. Analysts suggest a minimum of 12, given some aircraft will inevitably be in maintenance, some used for training and others deployed overseas at any one time.

But senior industry executives believe the MoD’s decision is also about the continued viability of Britain’s defence industry.

Buying off the shelf might be seen as ‘cheaper’, but if the domestic capability to design and manufacture military equipment is lost it will leave the nation’s security at the mercy of foreign powers.

Standard
Britain, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Society, United States

Iraq and the tinderbox of the Middle East: America weighs up its options…

IRAQ

Intro: Learning the lessons of recent conflicts in the region should provide us with a guide concerning the current situation in Iraq

The paradox of the US and UK cosying up to Iran in light of the chaos in Iraq reconciles well with the age-old adage of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ – an example that demonstrates in comfortable fashion just what is implied by this historical idiom. And, yet, the crisis in the region leaves the US and UK with little choice.

Over the last ten days images of ISIS fighters massacring Shi’ite captives, brought to us most graphically through the medium of social media, are brutally barbaric and shocking – but, that has been their intention all along; horror is, after all, a weapon of war. It is being used by ISIS in ways that is totally depraved and inhumane of reasoned thinking.

We should be in no doubt. There will be more such images as the insurgents intensify their activities. And with that will come increasing calls for the UK to accept its responsibility for Iraq’s grim predicament and to help to do something to alleviate it.

We should not be misunderstood, either, when it is asserted that the UK is, in some measure, culpable in bringing about the grisly events that are being played out in Iraq. That can hardly be denied. There are, of course, other factors which have played their part, most notably the wave of sectarian conflict that has swept across the Middle East as part of the Arab Spring and revolution. Ultimately, though, in supporting the 2003 military invasion, Britain helped to light the fuse.

Pressure for the UK to re-engage militarily in Iraq must, however, be firmly resisted. There is no public or political appetite for an intervention again at this level on this occasion. Two things have emerged that should be crystal clear, and learning the lessons of recent conflicts in the region should provide us with a guide concerning the current situation in Iraq.

The first is that, like all modern warfare, aerial superiority is the key to victory. This was demonstrated through the use of UK/US air support in the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, and, as it happens, in the way the absence of this support for rebels in Syria has allowed president Bashar al-Assad to continue his onslaught and by surviving as the country’s brutal dictator.

But the second is that air supremacy on its own cannot conclusively defeat an insurgency. Boots on the ground are required – although, crucially, those boots do not need to be US or UK boots. Arguably, those boots can be Iraqi boots. Once the Baghdad military forces regroup following the recent embarrassing defections that ceded so much ground and territory to ISIS, Iraq’s own security personnel should be in a position to claim back much of the lost ground.

For the Iraqi government to regain control, it does look as if US air support will be needed. But such assistance carries significant risks.

With Sunni-Shia tensions already high in the region, how would others in close proximity to events in Iraq react to the US effectively becoming an instrument of Shia might and strength? Middle East conflagrations do have a habit of converging, no more so than in the tinderbox that is Lebanon. US air strikes in Iraq would not auger well for those neighbouring countries that have allegiances with each other.

President Barack Obama continues to weigh up his options. Mr Obama has already approved 300 extra troops to secure the US embassy and Baghdad airport, and calls are mounting in America – notably in Republican quarters – for a more strategic military deployment to help repel the rebels and by restoring order.

In all likelihood the US President will win domestic support for drone strikes. Given what has gone in recent conflicts an air of caution seems certain to be placed over the use of direct air strikes. The use of drones carries risks, too, as innocents caught up in the crossfire, for example, will always consider defecting to the other side for protection. On a calculation of minimising collateral damage to achieve its objectives the use of aerial drones is an option America has at its disposal.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, Foreign Affairs, Government, Military, National Security, NATO, Politics, Society, United States

Being prepared for war is essential, but war is not cheap…

ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE STUDY

A study released by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) shows that Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost the UK Treasury more than £29 billion. In the report, the think tank argues that the wars were “strategic blunders, spreading terrorism, drumming up resistance and increasing the opium trade”.

The conclusions, though, are controversial. For instance, the authors of the study assert that various terrorist groups would not be infiltrating Syria or threatening Britain had Saddam Hussein stayed in power. Yet, Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant and despot, who clearly acted as a state sponsor of terror. Tens of thousands of lives were lost, thousands more were gassed in ethnic style cleansing in northern Iraq, and Saddam Hussein would certainly have had vast stockpiles of nerve and chemical agents at his disposal left over from his 8-years war with Iran. Many of these stockpiles still remain unaccounted for. Had Hussein not been toppled he doubtless would have continued to persecute his own population. The tyrant’s bloody wars against the Kurds in the north and Arab populations of the south should never be forgotten.

Putting aside the arguments about Britain’s role in the ‘War on Terror’, one uncontroversial fact emerges from the report which is indisputable: war is not cheap. The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) has witnessed massive cuts to our Armed Forces budget. Army numbers have been drastically cut back, aircraft have been withdrawn, tank battalions diminished, and even our last aircraft carrier decommissioned. Further cuts are imminent. Many of these cuts are being justified by the theory that we would never have to engage in the variety of long-term overseas military adventures that typified our activities and engagements during the Cold War era.

Since 2001, however, we have actually been involved in two such operations at a significant cost. And within the last few days, President Barack Obama announced that he would like America to act more as part of an international coalition rather than taking unilateral action. This implies, at least, a continued British role in Western security.

The UK has to be prepared for all eventualities, and adequate contingencies should be in place. As relations with Russia continue to worsen, for example, it might prove necessary for the UK to play a part in the wider campaign of checking Vladimir Putin’s belligerence. Only last month, Britain sent four Typhoon fighter jets to the Baltics as part of a NATO deployment, a sign that the West is unwilling to allow Europe to disintegrate at the hands of the Russian president. Nobody wants a conflict, but the potential for a tough offence remains the best defence.

Standard