Wednesday, 22 July 2009

Hats off to the First Sea Lord


Today, the First Sea Lord, Admiral Jonathan Band, had published an article in The Guardian on the ongoing need for a powerful naval fleet. This comes at a time when ‘sea-blindedness’ has risen both in Britain and across much of the rest of the European Union—paradoxically during a time when Europeans are more dependent on the sea than ever before. So Admiral Band is to be congratulated; rarely in a comment piece is strategic thinking expressed so elegantly, crisply and clearly. Here are a few snippets from the article:

Strategy is often misunderstood; it is about consequences and outcomes, the plan by which all the instruments of national power—diplomatic, intellectual military and economic—are to be employed in achieving identified goals in support of the national interest.

[...]

Our focus on enduring campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should not blind us to the longer-term implications of the U.K.’s geostrategic reality. Our ability to deploy globally and use the seas in support of operations is key to the success of the armed forces in war and time of tension; whether it means dropping Royal Marines into Iraq from carriers in the Gulf, as we did in 2003, or using warships to evacuate U.K. nationals from Lebanon in 2006. The sea can be a barrier or a highway, depending on who controls it, so the Royal Navy can shape future events as well as determine them.

[...]

But, even more fundamentally, the global sea lanes are the arteries along which the economy of this island nation flows. We are increasingly and heavily reliant on imported raw materials, goods, food and especially energy. We live in a “just enough, just in time economy”—if the sea lanes are denied to us, the supermarket shelves fall empty and the lights go out...At the same time, the scramble for resources and valuable raw materials is increasingly being played out at sea: the “cod wars” of the 1970s have given way to disputed maritime boundary claims as states vie to establish their access to the sea and the mineral and food wealth beneath it. In the Pacific and Indian oceans, states are expanding maritime forces and establishing strategically positioned naval bases to promote and protect their growing influence and wealth.

All good stuff! Then he goes in for the crescendo:

In the final analysis, a capable fleet is as much about deterring aggression and influencing friends as it is about delivering combat power at sea or from the sea. While we will always need to fight and win if necessary, when it comes to the future we shouldn’t overlook the value to this country of the wars we won’t have to fight as a result of using the Royal Navy strategically as an instrument of national power.

I couldn’t have put it better myself! Maritime power is a primarily a deterrent and a preventative instrument, which is used to project presence around the world. Naval power makes a community strong by extending its political and economic leverage, while simultaneously contributing to its social cohesion and cultural dynamism. All the great powers of antiquity—Athens, Rome, the Hanseatic League, Ming China, Spain, the Netherlands, and the French and British Empires, and the United States—have been at their strongest when their naval reach was at its greatest. This geopolitical fact will be no different for the twenty-first century’s great powers; indeed, any power risking its naval strength for its short term interests will soon cease to be a power at all.

• Please click here to read the rest of the First Sea Lord’s article.
 

6 comments:

Grahnlaw said...

Actually, you could put it better yourself, by rising from the national level to a European level.

James Rogers said...

Good point!

Wren said...

James

I've pretty much been saying this for years; a strong navy is THE backbone of defence.

Without the Navy we would not have prevailed in the Falklands, they played a pivotal role in Sierra Leon and Iraq - and of course unless we forget the first British shots fired in Afghanistan were from British Submarines.

With a resurgent Russia, an emerging China and India, unstable Pakistan and North Korea as nuclear powers and the extreme left gaining increasingly strong holds in Central and South America, many British Overseas territories, interests and allies face threats that we may need to intervene on a scale similar to (if not larger than) the Falklands war.

A fleet composed of;
4 of the new Aircraft Carriers,
4 new Assault ships (to replace Ocean),
6 Type 45’s,
34 new multi role Destroyers (to replace the remaining Type 42’s and the Frigates),
12 Mine Countermeasure vessels,
10-20 of a new class of cheap Frigates / Corvettes (in the 2500 to 3000 ton range with a max crew of 50 / 60) to take over all patrol, anti-drug, anti-smuggling and anti-piracy duties.
All of course augmented by 16 Nuclear subs, 4 Tridents (and their replacements), and the necessary support ships.

However having said all that, the way the Government keeps the head of the armed forces at each other no doubt we will see the head of the Army and RAF writing articles deriding the Navy as nothing more than a Cold war relic.

Wren

James Rogers said...

Hello Wren,

I agree. Your fleet composition seems entirely reasonable to me. Except that, I would reduce the number of cheap frigates we need. The smaller E.U. Member States would be better resourced to provide those. We need to encourage some of them to scrap their archaic equipment—Bulgaria has 1950s submarines still in service, and Finland still has a coastal artillery force—and invest in small sophisticated vessels, which they have more experience with and can easily afford. What we’re surely after here are gunboats like the Swedish Visby class and Germany’s Braunschweigs, as well as small frigates like the French La Fayette class. Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy should then form the backbone of an extended European fleet, provisioning it with ‘big ticket’ items like aircraft carriers, assault ships, and the larger and more advanced destroyers and nuclear attack submarines.

And the mishmash of different European warship classes currently under construction is wasteful and inefficient. With a pan-European defence review, we might be in a better position to decide what is needed, what is not, what should be scrapped, and how we can better co-ordinate our construction programmes—so that there are a couple of common frigate and destroyer classes, one class of corvette, and so on.

I suspect, given the content of William Hague’s speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies on Tuesday, that this will take quite some time to be rectified yet—and all the while, our competitors will grow in strength...

James.

Wren said...

Hi James,

Firstly apologies, I have been busy lately and have not posted the comments that your articles deserve.

Secondly, I partly agree, however my post was about purely British Naval forces to protect British interests and the interests or our overseas territories and our allies - all though you are slowly bringing me around to the idea of more European co-operation - you're not there yet!!

I think a strong independent British Navy is important – being a strong player in NATO as well as a major player in European defence as well as being a member of other regional security agreements out-side of Europe.

Lastly you are correct we should encourage other European nations to upgrade their forces and have (or try to have) a fairly consistent forces make-up.

Although we should never do anything that may jeopardise our ability to have access to American technology that the rest of the world is denied – until the point we surpass that.

As always James I look forward to your next article and the future ‘discussions’ we may have.

Wren

Jonathan said...

Dear all,

I can agree with many of the points that were made. I would however say that if it was to be a British fleet, that it shouldn't be so "top heavy" as you have suggested wren. I would personally have:

3 x CVF
4 x L
8 x T45
27 x General purpose frigate
15 x M
35 x Range of patrol vessels
12 x SSN
4 x SSBN

I think that in naval terms, we should also look at wider basing, so that smaller battlegroups are able to react to situations should they occur.

I hope that the next Chief of Naval Staff will be as good as band was.

Jonathan