Tag Archives: Ministry of Defence

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, Defence, Government, Military, National Security, Politics, Society

New round of British Defence Cuts…

DEFENCE

Intro: Our severely reduced military capability amounts to a mere standing defence force, and one that is barely equipped enough at present to deal with the most basic of future threats

The announcement from Whitehall that there is to be further cuts to Britain’s already shrinking Army, albeit on grounds of economy rather than strategic priorities, is deeply alarming.

The new rounds of cuts are aimed, primarily, at Britain’s elite rapid reaction force – the most unwarranted target for making economies and savings through cost-cutting. A prime target earmarked is 16 Air Assault Brigade, a core component of which is Britain’s elite Parachute Regiment. It is to be stripped of half its regular infantry battalions, as well as reductions in some of its helicopters, artillery and armoured vehicles. The Royal Engineers, who support our elite forces through maintenance of equipment and servicing, are also to suffer wide ranging cuts to its budget. 16 Air Assault Brigade is to be reduced from the current level of 8,000 troops to 5,000 by the end of this year. Such a scaling-down is difficult to discern given Britain’s post-Afghanistan strategy. This was meant to be focused on our military capability deemed agile enough to respond and execute contingency operations as they arise in the future. A diminishing capability raises fresh concerns over the Government’s overall defence policy.

Alarmingly, these latest cost reductions are to be implemented alongside the already massive cuts inflicted on the Armed Forces. The last strategic defence review in 2010 proposed the reduction of the Army’s strength from 102,000 regular soldiers to just 82,000 by the end of the decade. Parallel reductions of 8,000 personnel in the RAF and 5,500 in the Navy were also part of the defence reconfiguration. Not since before the Napoleonic Wars has Britain had such a low level of manning to call upon in the event of defending sovereign interests.

Some £10 billion has already been cut from the defence budget. Whilst understanding the need for austerity and for efficiency gains to be made where they can, of which the Ministry of Defence cannot expect to be excluded given its high wastage rate on incompetent procurement programmes, defence of the realm is a paramount obligation of every government. If that duty is neglected, a government runs the risk of all of its other priorities and government policies becoming compromised in the process. It is crucial, then, that Britain retains an effectively trained army with a full complement of experienced and professional troops. For many, though, our severely reduced military capability amounts to a mere defence force, and one that is barely equipped enough to deal with the most basic of future threats. Yet, the world is a far more dangerous place than it has ever been, and Britain should be punching above its weight: diminution of military resources reduces the UK’s global influence – military cuts which go against the Government’s aspiration of retaining a place at the top table around the world. To have a positive influence, it is crucial that Britain’s Armed Forces are sufficiently maintained if that ambition is to be met.

There is no doubt that Britain’s military Armed Forces have been pared to the bone. It has reached the stage where any further cuts may well imperil national security.

Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, Defence, Government, Human Rights, Military

Anger as RAF airmen gloat over dead bodies of Taliban fighters…

RAF POLICE & MILITARY INVESTIGATION

Two British servicemen from the RAF Regiment have been withdrawn from the frontline in Afghanistan and returned to Britain. Damning photographs apparently showing airmen posing in a glorified manner next to the bloodstained body of a Taliban fighter are now being investigated after images were brought to the attention of the Military Police.

In one graphic picture, a grinning serviceman gives a thumbs-up as he crouches beside a body. Trails of blood, seemingly from the man’s wounds, can be seen beside him.

Other photographs show more bodies of insurgents and there are concerns that the images could be used for recruitment and propaganda by the Taliban in the months leading up to the withdrawal of UK forces from Afghanistan later this year.

Described by some as being grotesque, others have been quick in condemning the apparent ‘stupidity’ of the airmen which they say has handed the Taliban a tool to beat the remaining British troops with prior to their departure from this war-torn country.

The photographs were taken after a Taliban attack on the main British base at Camp Bastion in September 2012, while Prince Harry was deployed to fly Apache attack helicopters.

A group of 15 Taliban fighters wearing stolen US military uniforms crept towards the camp, which was ringed by a 30ft metal fence and barbed-wiring. They cut through the wire and destroyed aircraft situated on the ground inside the camp, vehicles and equipment.

A three-hour gun battle then raged involving 50 British troops, some of whom have been decorated for bravery. Two US Marines were killed and 16 troops – eight US and eight British – were injured. Of the 15 insurgents, 14 were killed and one captured.

It is two of these Taliban bodies and the actions of two members of the RAF Regiment that are now at the centre of the hugely sensitive inquiry. The airmen are from 51 Squadron RAF Regiment, currently based in Moray, Scotland.

The Ministry of Defence said the images came to its attention last month and that military police are now investigating.

Two of the photographs appear to show British airmen giving the thumbs-up but it is unclear whether it is the same man. Defence officials said there was no excuse for such behaviour. Contrary to all instructions, these appear to break military rules.

The RAF insists it has a ‘zero-tolerance policy’ on the mistreatment of deceased enemy personnel. The incident is now the subject of an ongoing RAF Police investigation.

A spokesperson for Amnesty International, said: ‘These pictures are appalling. They violate international humanitarian law standards, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the disrespectful and degrading treatment of the bodies of dead combatants.’

The photographs emerged following the conviction of Sergeant Alexander Blackman, a Royal Marine, for executing a seriously wounded Taliban prisoner. The 39-year-old shot the captive in the chest at close range with his 9mm pistol.

Controversially, Sergeant Blackman is serving a minimum of ten years in prison after becoming the first British serviceman to be found guilty of murder in a war zone since the Second World War.

Blackman killed the insurgent on September 15, 2011. Recordings from a helmet-mounted camera worn by a fellow Royal Marine captured the moments when Blackman shot the prisoner.

OPINION

The unedifying sight of a British airman doing the thumbs-up next to the dead corpse has understandably provoked widespread anger. For civilians the images offer an uncomfortable position between death and glee. Such actions fall short of the respect demanded in the articles of the Geneva Conventions for the bodies of enemy combatants.

Laid before you above are the events that transpired on the evening of September 14, 2012, in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. 15 Taliban fighters dressed in US Army uniforms started their attack at 10pm, cutting through the perimeter wire of the base and opened fire with assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The firefight that ensued lasted for several hours and, by the end of it, six RAF Harrier jets were burnt out and destroyed, two Marines were dead, and a dozen more British and American soldiers were injured. All but one of the Taliban fighters was dead.

The attack that night was, undoubtedly, one of the most shocking incidents of the Afghan war since deployment began in 2001. The attack revealed culpable security lapses in the running of the camp, and the RAF airmen instantly caught up in it must have been terrified yet exhilarated to be alive. It is apt to point out that many defending the base that evening were decorated for bravery.

Two of them, however, did something in bad taste, by posing victoriously next to an enemy corpse. Such folly has been compounded and made much worse as the images have appeared online, provoking outrage as the pictures could be used as a propaganda weapon against Western forces as they prepare to leave Afghanistan by the end of the year. A ‘selfie’ type culture which has now stemmed into the battlefield seems certain to be at the centre of the military police investigation, and how it ever came to pass publicly.

Opinions will vary as to the extent of the damage caused and what action should be taken. We should trust, though, that a sense of proportion is retained. Young men have found themselves in extreme danger given the perilous circumstances of the moment and were sent there at the behest of our government.

But the difficulty will be in a matter of interpretation. Whilst Camp Bastion is not Abu Ghraib, in which US guards pictured themselves degrading Iraqi prisoners, the British authorities seem likely to draw parallels. Having survived the attack the airmen clearly would have felt euphoric, but the reality of war – including the rogue emotions that accompany killing and survival – does not always chime with civilian sensitivities.

  • The images concerned will not be posted on this site.
Standard