Britains Defences Are Down
"The saga of the Type 45 destroyers points to failings in the Royal Navy. In mid-2016, all six Type 45s were docked in Portsmouth"
A recent spat in the South China Morning Post's comment section cast doubt on the UK military's readiness. These comments prompted my research. This verified some of the claims, revealing a litany of poor decisions and waste. Most horrifying is that troops were forced to fight with shoddy kit, unfit for purpose, in pointless wars.
History has taught us that trouble can come from unexpected sources, catching nations unaware. The military has a pivotal role to play when things turn nasty. Thus, it is disturbing to see the shambolic state of readiness of Her Majesty’s armed forces.
As things stand, the army has around 83,000 personnel, including the reserves. Retention rates are worsening as soldiers leave for the less demanding civilian world. Attempts to massage the figures border on desperation.
In the latest jolly wheeze, reserve soldiers are deemed trained after firing ten rounds on a 25 m range. Even if a soldier fails the fitness test, he still passes muster. All he needs to do is promise to come back later for another go. For reference, the United States Marine Corps has around 185,000 active members, plus some 38,500 in the reserves.
The Brylcreem boys are no better off. The RAF is reduced to six frontline squadrons. At times, defending UK airspace amounts to no more than two interceptors. Should an enemy arrive in force, mounting a response may well prove impossible. For the moment, there are few operational bombers and no submarine-hunting planes. That’s a concern for a maritime nation.
The late arrival of the expensive F-35 Lightning is attracting a lot of publicity. At £70m a pop, this is a lavish bit of kit. Unfortunately, reports suggest it's not all chocks away. Technical issues plague the plane, and its ability to fight is now in question.
In recent run-offs against a typhoon, the F-35 lost every time. Pilots cite its low payload capacity and limited endurance. Its touted capabilities appear to have been tested only in computer simulations. Real-world conditions are taking their toll on this fancy box of tricks. Although it may yet prove itself, the omens are not promising.
The RAF has taken delivery of 11 airframes to date as it builds up a squadron. Currently, the RAF has 143 Typhoons and 138 ageing Tornado jets on its books. That only tells part of the story. 33 of the Tornados are not available for service and await cannibalisation for spare parts.
Meanwhile, over a quarter of the Typhoons are offline in the ‘sustainable’ fleet. In effect, this means the planes are mothballed. Most of the Chinook helicopter fleet, so crucial to trooping, also sits idle. How long it would take to activate this kit is unknown. Some of the Chinooks have not flown for 20 years.
In the long run, drones are a better option. They are not as sexy as the fly-boy image. Drones do the job, are cheaper to operate, have greater range, can loiter longer over targets, and are expendable. When it goes wrong, no pilot is at risk. Those who argue against drones suggest that having a human see the target avoids civilian casualties. In reality, pilots sit thousands of feet away and use technology to see the hit point. It’s no different for a drone operator.
Anyway, evidence from recent operations points to a mounting toll of civilian casualties. It doesn't matter whether a drone or a manned plane hits the target; innocents are still killed.
Should a large-scale conflict break out, the tempo of operations would escalate. In no time, the demands on equipment would become extreme. Maintenance commitments for sophisticated kit and operational losses would soon take a toll.
At the height of the Battle of Britain, it was not unusual to suffer losses of 20 planes a day. Now, granted, warfare has changed. Nonetheless, we couldn’t sustain a campaign of that nature for more than a week. And can anyone say for sure that a war of attrition would not occur?
The saga of the Type 45 destroyers points to failings in the Royal Navy. In mid-2016, all six Type 45s were docked in Portsmouth. So what was the issue? It appears the Type 45 doesn’t work at sea. The complex systems failed when powered up because the engines couldn’t generate enough power. Plugged into the mains supply in port, it's all fine and dandy. Put to sea, turn on the systems... kaput.
The Type 45 warships were built in ‘blocks’ at different shipyards. The ‘blocks’ were then brought together to assemble a whole ship. Unfortunately, the parts didn’t fit together. Misaligned pipes and hydraulic systems meant fitting patches. The result is piping under tension that stores energy, which could be released in rough seas. Whether this, or a lack of power, curtailed the effectiveness of the Type 45s is unknown.
In April 2016, HMS Dauntless, a Type 45, was withdrawn from active service until at least 2019. Her official status is ‘engineering training ship’, pending a refit. The need for such a lengthy refit for a ship commissioned in 2010 raises questions. To compound the challenges, the navy failed to recruit enough sailors to operate all six Type 45s. Of course, BAE Systems, which built the ships, is being paid to maintain them. Another cracking deal.
The Royal Navy has a track record of putting vessels into service with untested systems. HMS Ambush, an attack submarine, was portrayed as the most advanced vessel in its class. Its sonar could detect targets thousands of miles away. Well, that's what the PR boys spouted. Then Ambush hit a huge, noisy tanker in the Med. The sonar and a fancy new periscope failed to detect it. A lack of training and testing contributed to the incident. Luckily, no one was killed.
Next, we have the dozy decision to build two aircraft carriers. The first, "Big Lizzie”, is stealing crews from other Navy ships because of a lack of recruits. Now, the term ‘aircraft-carrier’ suggests that “Big Lizzie” will have planes. Doh, no! There aren’t any currently available. The F-35 Lightning II is not yet operational for carrier operations. Thus, the carrier is nothing more than a fancy ornament.
But don’t panic; here comes the cavalry. The US Marine Corp will use “Big Lizzie” for their operations. Of course, at the same time, our boys will get some training.
Adding to the uncertainty is the survivability of carriers in a conflict. Supersonic missiles approaching on a ballistic trajectory mean current defences won’t work. Yet vainglory Admirals love carriers. Big and flashy. Thus, you get to pretend you are a proper navy. The American carriers enjoy a large force of screening craft for protection. Britain has no such capability.
Britain also lacks airborne submarine-hunting capability. An interesting fact: the UK donates £200m a year to India in foreign aid. That's roughly the amount needed to sustain a submarine-hunting response. By the way, India has a fleet of submarine-hunting aircraft to protect its waters.
Inappropriate kit and poor decisions have consequences. In the early 2000s, at least 37 British soldiers died because of the failure to give them protection. In Afghanistan, the Brits drove around, exposing themselves to roadside IEDs. Other nations flew by air, thereby avoiding the IEDs. British helicopters were not available. Inter-service rivalry stalled consensus on the type of helicopter needed. Then the Chinooks arrived late and went into storage.
Likewise, the use of the Snatch Land Rover left troops unprotected against blast. In a self-serving myth, the generals sought to deflect blame for that onto the politicians. It's true the politicians played a role. It's also true that senior military commanders made a mess of things. They failed to recognise new threats and then pursued personal and service agendas. They sent troops into the field with sub-standard kit and cannot escape blame.
The military loves to boast about its ability to respond to natural disasters. Much of its recruitment publicity material pivots around this role. Again, the truth is dismaying. Amid the destruction caused by Hurricane Irina in the Caribbean, British military efforts proved lacklustre.
Only one helicopter was available. The Lynx Wildcat has a limited lift capacity of 1,480 kg, compared with the Chinook, which can lift 8,600 kg. As the Royal Navy struggled to help, a dozen Chinooks sat mothballed in the UK. As a consequence, British subjects were left to struggle for weeks. On adjacent islands under French jurisdiction, the recovery was swift.
Short-sighted thinking and bright ideas have blighted the RAF in recent years. 14 Airbus planes were acquired for air-to-air refuelling and troop transport. The smart part is that the planes can be rented to civilian operators when not needed by the RAF. As is the case these days, a private finance agreement managed the project. All good? Except the planes cannot refuel all types of RAF planes. To accommodate civilian use, the planes omitted the rigid refuelling boom system.
The partners in this deal are the AirTanker consortium. It stands to make a profit even if the RAF doesn't use the planes. Plus, if the RAF opts to deploy another contractor to move troops, AirTanker can claim up to £8,000 per flight. What a deal! In summary, the RAF has acquired tankers it can't use in all scenarios, and it pays for not using them.
AirTanker’s main competition comes from a company operating Lockheed Tristar air-refuelling aircraft. These planes can handle all types of refuelling. Why’s that? They are former RAF aircraft sold off in 2014. If the RAF opt to employ their old tankers, they need to compensate AirTanker. Figure that one out.
Finally, Britain prides itself on being a member of the nuclear club. That status secures a place at the UN’s top table. It gets to play with the big boys, despite being a small island nation. Unfortunately, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is not as independent as we once thought.
In June 2016, during a missile test launch from HMS Vengeance, something went wrong. After leaving the submarine, the missile veered off course. Never a good thing for a nuclear missile, although this one had a mock warhead. The US military contractor then destroyed it.
Yes, the US military had control of the missile in flight. This incident revealed that British nuclear weapons pass their telemetry through US systems. This event was on a range under test conditions, yet it prompts many questions.
The nuclear missiles are US-manufactured, maintained and leased to Britain. Thus, the whole system is dependent on the US. France has an independent nuclear system, as does North Korea. The UK has a borrowed system. As long as the Yanks are well disposed towards the United Kingdom, that should be fine, right? Questions about the extent of US control over Britain’s nuclear arsenal remain unresolved. With Donald Trump in the White House, who’s worried?
As a side issue, Vengeance and her sister Vanguard boats all run on Windows XP. Anyone who runs XP knows its limitations. Recent cyber attacks must be raising red flags.
Britain is not unique in generating hubris around its military forces. Passed down the generations are tales of individual acts of heroism and robust actions. Of concern, though, is that myths sometimes hide facts. And these truths can be unsettling.
Yes, we stood alone for a year against Nazi Germany, with India, Canada, Australia and the rest of the Empire in our back pocket. Attrition ultimately won the war, and the Russians paid the price. The Allies were aided by an endless supply of US material. It shouldn’t be forgotten that the audacious Falklands campaign was a close-run thing. Had the Argentinians held out for another week, British Forces would have faced supply exhaustion. Victory hung by a thread.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, notable failures raised doubts. The death toll of 453 in Afghanistan achieved nothing. Individual British soldiers fought with tenacity throughout the war, yet their efforts were in vain. They were let down by inferior equipment, inadequate training, and a lack of a clear mission. Added to this was poor strategic leadership.
In Basra, British troops became caught up in a vicious civil war they couldn’t comprehend or control. In truth, the soldiers were there so the politicians could maintain a visceral relationship with the US. In the end, the British military had to hand over to the US and pull out. Inappropriate tactics and the lack of body armour contributed to what was a defeat.
Which brings us to 2017. Britain’s defences are rickety at best; not fit for purpose at worst. Poor choices by military leaders, a lack of numbers, and slipping standards have degraded fighting ability. Instead of focusing on the basics, grand projects attract all the attention and funding. A carrier is about power-projection, and that’s the issue. Britain is seeking to create the impression that it’s still a big player on the world stage.
With Brexit looming, the economics of maintaining costly military projects look shaky. Tough decisions are needed. For now, the Ministry of Defence is selling off military real estate to raise funds. But that’s a one-off cash injection. Once sold, the land is gone forever. The Panglossian statements from the ever-efficient military PR machine can’t hide those brutal truths.
I’d suggest getting back to basics. Britain needs to recognise that it’s no longer a mini-superpower. It can then reconfigure its military forces to protect the nation rather than getting involved in futile overseas wars.
Lastly, the young men and women in harm's way deserve the best kit and systems. They also deserve better political and military leadership. I am sorry to say there is abundant evidence that this isn’t happening.
November 2017
History has taught us that trouble can come from unexpected sources, catching nations unaware. The military has a pivotal role to play when things turn nasty. Thus, it is disturbing to see the shambolic state of readiness of Her Majesty’s armed forces.
As things stand, the army has around 83,000 personnel, including the reserves. Retention rates are worsening as soldiers leave for the less demanding civilian world. Attempts to massage the figures border on desperation.
In the latest jolly wheeze, reserve soldiers are deemed trained after firing ten rounds on a 25 m range. Even if a soldier fails the fitness test, he still passes muster. All he needs to do is promise to come back later for another go. For reference, the United States Marine Corps has around 185,000 active members, plus some 38,500 in the reserves.
The Brylcreem boys are no better off. The RAF is reduced to six frontline squadrons. At times, defending UK airspace amounts to no more than two interceptors. Should an enemy arrive in force, mounting a response may well prove impossible. For the moment, there are few operational bombers and no submarine-hunting planes. That’s a concern for a maritime nation.
The late arrival of the expensive F-35 Lightning is attracting a lot of publicity. At £70m a pop, this is a lavish bit of kit. Unfortunately, reports suggest it's not all chocks away. Technical issues plague the plane, and its ability to fight is now in question.
In recent run-offs against a typhoon, the F-35 lost every time. Pilots cite its low payload capacity and limited endurance. Its touted capabilities appear to have been tested only in computer simulations. Real-world conditions are taking their toll on this fancy box of tricks. Although it may yet prove itself, the omens are not promising.
The RAF has taken delivery of 11 airframes to date as it builds up a squadron. Currently, the RAF has 143 Typhoons and 138 ageing Tornado jets on its books. That only tells part of the story. 33 of the Tornados are not available for service and await cannibalisation for spare parts.
Meanwhile, over a quarter of the Typhoons are offline in the ‘sustainable’ fleet. In effect, this means the planes are mothballed. Most of the Chinook helicopter fleet, so crucial to trooping, also sits idle. How long it would take to activate this kit is unknown. Some of the Chinooks have not flown for 20 years.
In the long run, drones are a better option. They are not as sexy as the fly-boy image. Drones do the job, are cheaper to operate, have greater range, can loiter longer over targets, and are expendable. When it goes wrong, no pilot is at risk. Those who argue against drones suggest that having a human see the target avoids civilian casualties. In reality, pilots sit thousands of feet away and use technology to see the hit point. It’s no different for a drone operator.
Anyway, evidence from recent operations points to a mounting toll of civilian casualties. It doesn't matter whether a drone or a manned plane hits the target; innocents are still killed.
Should a large-scale conflict break out, the tempo of operations would escalate. In no time, the demands on equipment would become extreme. Maintenance commitments for sophisticated kit and operational losses would soon take a toll.
At the height of the Battle of Britain, it was not unusual to suffer losses of 20 planes a day. Now, granted, warfare has changed. Nonetheless, we couldn’t sustain a campaign of that nature for more than a week. And can anyone say for sure that a war of attrition would not occur?
The saga of the Type 45 destroyers points to failings in the Royal Navy. In mid-2016, all six Type 45s were docked in Portsmouth. So what was the issue? It appears the Type 45 doesn’t work at sea. The complex systems failed when powered up because the engines couldn’t generate enough power. Plugged into the mains supply in port, it's all fine and dandy. Put to sea, turn on the systems... kaput.
The Type 45 warships were built in ‘blocks’ at different shipyards. The ‘blocks’ were then brought together to assemble a whole ship. Unfortunately, the parts didn’t fit together. Misaligned pipes and hydraulic systems meant fitting patches. The result is piping under tension that stores energy, which could be released in rough seas. Whether this, or a lack of power, curtailed the effectiveness of the Type 45s is unknown.
In April 2016, HMS Dauntless, a Type 45, was withdrawn from active service until at least 2019. Her official status is ‘engineering training ship’, pending a refit. The need for such a lengthy refit for a ship commissioned in 2010 raises questions. To compound the challenges, the navy failed to recruit enough sailors to operate all six Type 45s. Of course, BAE Systems, which built the ships, is being paid to maintain them. Another cracking deal.
The Royal Navy has a track record of putting vessels into service with untested systems. HMS Ambush, an attack submarine, was portrayed as the most advanced vessel in its class. Its sonar could detect targets thousands of miles away. Well, that's what the PR boys spouted. Then Ambush hit a huge, noisy tanker in the Med. The sonar and a fancy new periscope failed to detect it. A lack of training and testing contributed to the incident. Luckily, no one was killed.
Next, we have the dozy decision to build two aircraft carriers. The first, "Big Lizzie”, is stealing crews from other Navy ships because of a lack of recruits. Now, the term ‘aircraft-carrier’ suggests that “Big Lizzie” will have planes. Doh, no! There aren’t any currently available. The F-35 Lightning II is not yet operational for carrier operations. Thus, the carrier is nothing more than a fancy ornament.
But don’t panic; here comes the cavalry. The US Marine Corp will use “Big Lizzie” for their operations. Of course, at the same time, our boys will get some training.
Adding to the uncertainty is the survivability of carriers in a conflict. Supersonic missiles approaching on a ballistic trajectory mean current defences won’t work. Yet vainglory Admirals love carriers. Big and flashy. Thus, you get to pretend you are a proper navy. The American carriers enjoy a large force of screening craft for protection. Britain has no such capability.
Britain also lacks airborne submarine-hunting capability. An interesting fact: the UK donates £200m a year to India in foreign aid. That's roughly the amount needed to sustain a submarine-hunting response. By the way, India has a fleet of submarine-hunting aircraft to protect its waters.
Inappropriate kit and poor decisions have consequences. In the early 2000s, at least 37 British soldiers died because of the failure to give them protection. In Afghanistan, the Brits drove around, exposing themselves to roadside IEDs. Other nations flew by air, thereby avoiding the IEDs. British helicopters were not available. Inter-service rivalry stalled consensus on the type of helicopter needed. Then the Chinooks arrived late and went into storage.
Likewise, the use of the Snatch Land Rover left troops unprotected against blast. In a self-serving myth, the generals sought to deflect blame for that onto the politicians. It's true the politicians played a role. It's also true that senior military commanders made a mess of things. They failed to recognise new threats and then pursued personal and service agendas. They sent troops into the field with sub-standard kit and cannot escape blame.
The military loves to boast about its ability to respond to natural disasters. Much of its recruitment publicity material pivots around this role. Again, the truth is dismaying. Amid the destruction caused by Hurricane Irina in the Caribbean, British military efforts proved lacklustre.
Only one helicopter was available. The Lynx Wildcat has a limited lift capacity of 1,480 kg, compared with the Chinook, which can lift 8,600 kg. As the Royal Navy struggled to help, a dozen Chinooks sat mothballed in the UK. As a consequence, British subjects were left to struggle for weeks. On adjacent islands under French jurisdiction, the recovery was swift.
Short-sighted thinking and bright ideas have blighted the RAF in recent years. 14 Airbus planes were acquired for air-to-air refuelling and troop transport. The smart part is that the planes can be rented to civilian operators when not needed by the RAF. As is the case these days, a private finance agreement managed the project. All good? Except the planes cannot refuel all types of RAF planes. To accommodate civilian use, the planes omitted the rigid refuelling boom system.
The partners in this deal are the AirTanker consortium. It stands to make a profit even if the RAF doesn't use the planes. Plus, if the RAF opts to deploy another contractor to move troops, AirTanker can claim up to £8,000 per flight. What a deal! In summary, the RAF has acquired tankers it can't use in all scenarios, and it pays for not using them.
AirTanker’s main competition comes from a company operating Lockheed Tristar air-refuelling aircraft. These planes can handle all types of refuelling. Why’s that? They are former RAF aircraft sold off in 2014. If the RAF opt to employ their old tankers, they need to compensate AirTanker. Figure that one out.
Finally, Britain prides itself on being a member of the nuclear club. That status secures a place at the UN’s top table. It gets to play with the big boys, despite being a small island nation. Unfortunately, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is not as independent as we once thought.
In June 2016, during a missile test launch from HMS Vengeance, something went wrong. After leaving the submarine, the missile veered off course. Never a good thing for a nuclear missile, although this one had a mock warhead. The US military contractor then destroyed it.
Yes, the US military had control of the missile in flight. This incident revealed that British nuclear weapons pass their telemetry through US systems. This event was on a range under test conditions, yet it prompts many questions.
The nuclear missiles are US-manufactured, maintained and leased to Britain. Thus, the whole system is dependent on the US. France has an independent nuclear system, as does North Korea. The UK has a borrowed system. As long as the Yanks are well disposed towards the United Kingdom, that should be fine, right? Questions about the extent of US control over Britain’s nuclear arsenal remain unresolved. With Donald Trump in the White House, who’s worried?
As a side issue, Vengeance and her sister Vanguard boats all run on Windows XP. Anyone who runs XP knows its limitations. Recent cyber attacks must be raising red flags.
Britain is not unique in generating hubris around its military forces. Passed down the generations are tales of individual acts of heroism and robust actions. Of concern, though, is that myths sometimes hide facts. And these truths can be unsettling.
Yes, we stood alone for a year against Nazi Germany, with India, Canada, Australia and the rest of the Empire in our back pocket. Attrition ultimately won the war, and the Russians paid the price. The Allies were aided by an endless supply of US material. It shouldn’t be forgotten that the audacious Falklands campaign was a close-run thing. Had the Argentinians held out for another week, British Forces would have faced supply exhaustion. Victory hung by a thread.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, notable failures raised doubts. The death toll of 453 in Afghanistan achieved nothing. Individual British soldiers fought with tenacity throughout the war, yet their efforts were in vain. They were let down by inferior equipment, inadequate training, and a lack of a clear mission. Added to this was poor strategic leadership.
In Basra, British troops became caught up in a vicious civil war they couldn’t comprehend or control. In truth, the soldiers were there so the politicians could maintain a visceral relationship with the US. In the end, the British military had to hand over to the US and pull out. Inappropriate tactics and the lack of body armour contributed to what was a defeat.
Which brings us to 2017. Britain’s defences are rickety at best; not fit for purpose at worst. Poor choices by military leaders, a lack of numbers, and slipping standards have degraded fighting ability. Instead of focusing on the basics, grand projects attract all the attention and funding. A carrier is about power-projection, and that’s the issue. Britain is seeking to create the impression that it’s still a big player on the world stage.
With Brexit looming, the economics of maintaining costly military projects look shaky. Tough decisions are needed. For now, the Ministry of Defence is selling off military real estate to raise funds. But that’s a one-off cash injection. Once sold, the land is gone forever. The Panglossian statements from the ever-efficient military PR machine can’t hide those brutal truths.
I’d suggest getting back to basics. Britain needs to recognise that it’s no longer a mini-superpower. It can then reconfigure its military forces to protect the nation rather than getting involved in futile overseas wars.
Lastly, the young men and women in harm's way deserve the best kit and systems. They also deserve better political and military leadership. I am sorry to say there is abundant evidence that this isn’t happening.
November 2017