Tag Archives: Philip Hammond

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, Government, National Security, Politics, Syria

Engage in Syria at your own peril…

SYRIA: A RISKY VENTURE

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, has hinted that hundreds of British soldiers could be sent to Syria to prevent a chemical threat to the West.

Mr Hammond has refused to rule out ordering troops to the war zone to rein in President Bashar al-Assad’s regime or seize stockpiles of illegal weapons.

He said it was ‘unlikely’ but no option was ‘off the table’ – in the most serious warning yet that the UK could deploy forces to Syria.

Mr Hammond gave his remarks after the outgoing head of the Armed Forces, General Sir David Richards, said Britain risked being dragged into the war.

Sir David, who has stepped down after three years as Chief of the Defence Staff, said ministers ‘would have to act’ if hoards of chemical weapons were discovered.

The UK must be prepared to ‘go to war’ if it wanted to stop the bloodshed inflicted by President Assad to crush a pro-freedom uprising in his country, he said.

At a ceremony at Horse Guards Parade in London to mark the end of General Richards’ tenure, the Defence Secretary said:

… I think it’s very unlikely we would see boots on the ground but we must never take any options off the table.

… It’s not our job to decide how and when and if to deploy forces but to make sure the Prime Minister and the National Security Council have the maximum range of options open to them.

General Richards revealed planning for a major operation led by Special Forces was under way. He said:

… The risk of terrorism is becoming more dominant in our vision for what we do in Syria.

… If that risk develops, we would almost certainly have to act … and we are ready to do so. Some could characterise that as war.

OPINION

The Prime Minister should consider very carefully the words of the outgoing Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, before promising to give military assistance to rebel forces in Syria.

On leaving his post, Sir David has warned that plans under consideration to arm the rebels and set up a no-fly zone (NFZ) would be the start of a deeper and more dangerous British involvement. Stemming from that would invariably be aerial attacks on ground targets, followed by advisers to train the rebels, and, potentially, British combat troops on the ground.

Do we really know who these rebels are? Can we be confident that if they overthrow Assad, who has an advanced Air Force, they would govern any better? If Britain was to arm the rebels, could those weapons be used against British or other Western targets?

Syria has evolved into a pernicious bloody civil war with complex sectarian dimensions the West barely understands.

Standard
Britain, Defence, European Court, Government, Military, National Security

ECHR verdict for British troops on the battlefield…

BRITISH troops could be prevented from carrying out vital missions after an explosive human rights ruling.

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond MP, said military commanders will be ‘living in fear’ of being prosecuted.

Mr Hammond believes our forces risk being reduced to Continental-style peacekeeping roles – which see some countries refuse to let their personnel go out after dark – after judges in Strasbourg at the European Court decreed that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies on the battlefield.

The Defence Secretary is understood to be so furious at the Supreme Court ruling that he is considering demanding a revocation – and believes it strengthens the case for Britain quitting the ECHR. Mr Hammond said:

… We can’t have troop commanders living in fear of how lawyers back in London might interpret their battlefield decisions that are vital to protecting our national security.

… There could be serious implications for our ability to work with international partners not bound by the ECHR.

If the ECHR ruling applies to personnel on operations it is feared that commanders may be reluctant to make decisions in the field that will then be second-guessed by lawyers sitting behind a desk in London. Commanders will not want to be tied up by health and safety rules that prevent troops patrolling at night or only with certain items of equipment.

Families of some British soldiers killed or injured fighting in Iraq have been given the go-ahead to bring compensation claims against the Government.

A British Snatch Land Rover of the type used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A British Snatch Land Rover of the type used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Supreme Court has ruled that cases of troops killed while driving Land Rovers could be brought under the ‘right to life’ enshrined in article two of the ECHR. This potentially outlaws future deployment of troops with outdated equipment.

It also ruled that families of soldiers killed by ‘friendly fire’ from Challenger tanks could sue for negligence.

The mother of Private Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, who died in July 2005 after a Snatch Land Rover was blown up, said it meant soldiers could no longer be treated as ‘sub-human with no rights.’

Conservative MP Dominic Raab, a lawyer, and who seeks reform of human rights law, said:

… The Supreme Court ruling will endanger our forces and undermine democratic accountability.

Colonel Richard Kemp, former head of British forces in Afghanistan, said:

… We cannot allow a constricting health and safety culture to creep in and prevent the vital job our soldiers do.

COMMENT 

Is it still a matter of great shame to Britain’s political class that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers were sent to fight and die without being properly equipped?

But, there is a dichotomy. While it is vital that ministers should be held to account, it’s impossible not to be alarmed by the Supreme Court’s ruling that soldiers in warzones should, for the first time, be given protection under the Human Rights Act.

Doubtless, the judges felt that giving soldiers and their families the right to sue the Ministry of Defence would focus the minds of the Government and Army on minimising risk.

On the face of it, it appears that they have failed to accord due weight to the fact that military commanders are regularly tasked with making instant life-or-death decisions. Any fear of future litigation which might cause them to hesitate for even a moment could have disastrous consequences.

What is more, if the Defence Budget is drained by fighting vexatious claims brought by city lawyers, there will inevitably be less to spend on equipment and training.

The great fear of Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is that the ruling could diminish Britain’s standing in the world, as our forces are reduced to that of a peacekeeping role. He understandably questions how we can continue to work side-by-side with our US allies, when they are not beholden to the same human rights edicts.

Standard