| NEWS RELEASE Thursday 15 April 2010 PARTIES GET THEIR PRIORITIES WRONG... AGAIN Only 9 pages out of 308 are devoted to defence and national security in the Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrat manifestos The three main political parties have all failed to give sufficient attention to the defence of the realm – supposedly “the first priority of government” – in their General Election manifestos, according to the UK National Defence Association (UKNDA). In a total of 308 pages of General Election promises by the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, barely nine pages are devoted to the state of Britain's Armed Forces. The Conservatives cover defence in four pages of their 118-page manifesto, the Liberal Democrats give the subject the equivalent of three pages out of 112, and in Labour's 78-page manifesto defence warrants only two pages. “This is an appalling reflection on our politicians and their muddled sense of priorities,” says UKNDA spokesman Andy Smith. “Many of these same politicians still claim that 'defence is the first priority of government' – but the reality is exposed by the scant attention given to the subject in their parties' manifestos.” The UKNDA believes that the policies set out in the three manifestos are inherently dishonest. “Both Labour and the Tories see Britain continuing to have a strong global role and a proactive foreign policy,” says Andy Smith, “yet neither party indicates how the resources will be made available for our Armed Forces to do this. The fact is that defence has been chronically under-funded since the 1990s, both by Tory and Labour governments, leaving our Forces severely over-stretched and under-equipped. Britain now spends barely 2.2% of GDP on defence, which is woefully inadequate. “The Liberal Democrats pledge to restore the 'Military Covenant' and improve the welfare of Service personnel and their families, but also call for 'savings' in the defence budget – despite the fact that military funding has already fallen in real terms over the past decade while other areas of Government spending have grown. Rather than accepting the urgent need to increase defence funding, the LibDems see Britain's future defence needs being met through increased European cooperation, which in our view is wholly unrealistic. “If the Labour, Tory and LibDem parties were honest they would spell out the risks to Britain from a continued failure to invest adequately in defence. Instead, each one of these parties has dodged the fundamental question of defence funding. Only by increasing the budget for our Armed Forces can we repair Britain's fractured military capability and ensure the future security of our country, our worldwide interests, our borders, our trade routes and energy supplies.” -Ends
Media contacts: Cdr John Muxworthy, e-mail ceo@uknda.org, tel 01264 860693, or Andy Smith, e-mail pro@uknda.org, tel 07737 271676.
Notes to Editors: The United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA) was formed in 2007 to campaign in support of Britain's Armed Forces. The Patrons of the UKNDA include three former Chiefs of the Defence Staff – Admiral The Lord Boyce, Marshal of the RAF The Lord Craig, and General The Lord Guthrie. Tri-Service and politically independent, the UKNDA aims to ensure that Britain's fighting men and women are properly trained, equipped, sustained and cared for. The Association's founder-President, Winston S. Churchill, former MP and war correspondent (and grandson of Britain's WWII Prime Minister), died on March 2, 2010. For more information on the UKNDA, go to www.uknda.org MANIFESTO of the UNITED KINGDOM NATIONAL DEFENCE ASSOCIATION April 2010 The purpose of the UKNDA is to campaign for sufficient, appropriate and fully funded Armed Forces that the nation needs to defend effectively the United Kingdom, its people, their security and vital interests wherever they may be. Britain’s Armed Forces – Under-funded and over-stretched Over the past 25 years the percentage of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) invested in defence has been remorselessly reduced (from over 5% to barely 2.2%). This under-funding results in inadequate numbers of personnel and equipment. Politicians of all parties chant the mantra that “Defence is the first priority of Government” – but the evidence shows otherwise. Defence is low and getting steadily lower in the nation’s list of priorities. All three Armed Services have been repeatedly reduced in size and capability so that they are now chronically over-stretched for the tasks they are given. Despite the Government’s in-depth Strategic Defence Review twelve years ago (SDR ’98) our Armed Forces’ commitments have not been properly funded, leading to successive further reviews in which recommendations have been excessively ‘adjusted’ or abandoned altogether. The recommendations of SDR ’98 have all but vanished from sight. In judging the necessary requirements of all three Armed Services it must be remembered that for the past twelve years – uniquely among the major government departments – the MoD received virtually no increase in its budget in real terms, i.e. what that budget could buy. This is because the cost of equipment has increased 6% to 8% a year, far in excess of general inflation. Hence the Services were starved of necessary resources while having five unforeseen wars to fight (Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq). So the starting point for considering general cuts across the public sector needs to allow for the fact that the scope for defence cuts is small to non-existent. Britain could of course abandon its historic roles of protecting its global interests and its major commitment to global peace and security but this would be at a terrible price to defence of the realm. No other nation or alliance would be obliged to protect our interests, and the many and growing threats would remain. Defence policy is inextricably linked to national and international security and to the nation’s foreign policy. Funding for defence must therefore be seen in the context of these requirements, and not in isolation. Britain and British interests worldwide are constantly at risk from international terrorism as well as from rogue states. This means we need a strong commitment to collective security with other democracies. If we are to maintain our leading international role (UN Security Council), uphold our Treaty obligations (NATO) and play our full part in the world community, alongside the US, we need to enhance our military capability, not reduce it. After years of chronic under-funding, during which time the UK has been forced to ‘punch above its budget’, defence funding must be increased to meet the challenges that lie ahead. Failure to do so will inevitably lead to a significant reduction in Britain’s international influence, as well as irreparable damage to our ability to defend ourselves and secure our borders, our trade routes, our energy supplies and our vital economic interests around the world. The Royal Navy The Royal Navy, in both numbers of ships and personnel, is now smaller than at any time in the past century – and it is getting ever smaller. The 1998 Strategic Defence Review, conducted before the current Iraq and Afghanistan operations began, set out a requirement for two large aircraft carriers (the order was finally placed in 2008), 32 escorts (including 12 Type 45 DARING class Destroyers) and 10 SSNs (Submarines, nuclear powered, hunter killers). Today the carriers are still at least seven and nine years away from completion, the number of escorts has dropped to twenty-three and is declining further, while the number of SSNs is dropping to six, possibly seven.
Trafficking of immigrants, narcotics and arms is growing. Piracy and terrorism at sea are on the increase as are disputes over seabed resources, including now in the Arctic and most recently off the Falkland Islands and the Antarctic where the UK has traditional interests. In response to this situation many nations are increasing their defence budgets and, especially east of Suez, building up their navies. The Australians are rapidly expanding their Navy – only the Royal Navy is shrinking – and fast. We cannot be sure that our vital interests are secure in a world that is becoming daily more dangerous. Business is increasingly being conducted on a “just in time” basis; the holding of lots of stocks and reserves in this country and elsewhere is a thing of the past. If the Suez Canal were to be blocked; if the Straits of Hormuz were to be closed by a regional war (which is far from being unlikely) then this country would feel the pinch within weeks – and our economy stretched even further than it is now within a month.
There are fewer submarines, minesweepers and patrol vessels than ever before. There are insufficient small ship sea going training opportunities for younger officers and ratings, with the result that operational and command experience is lacking and consequently standards are falling.
The Army British soldiers have died in combat in every year since the Second World War, with the exception of 1968. We have the most respected, experienced and battle-proven army in the World. Yet we come 28th in the World in terms of numbers of soldiers. This is well below states such as Pakistan (7th), Iran (8th), Ukraine (12th), Indonesia (13th) Thailand (14th), Syria (15th), Taiwan (16th), and Brazil (17th). Even Mexico, Morocco, Eritrea and Poland have more soldiers than us. Germany, France and Japan also have many more soldiers – few of them are on active operations. The Army, with trained manpower strength now below 100,000, is grievously short of ‘boots on the ground’ – at least 3,000 short according to the former Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt – and infantry regiments have been merged or disbanded entirely. Since 2001 combined British fatalities from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have reached over 400. That figure for deaths in combat is equivalent to half of that sustained by the Army during its entire four decades of operations in Northern Ireland. Tour intervals, the time between returning on operations and then deploying again, is supposed to be two years. This Army Board target, to allow for leave, recovery and training, is miles out of sight for most soldiers – particularly engineers, signallers, medics and, of course, infantrymen. At one stage during a recent operation more than 50% of the Army’s signallers were deployed. They could not even be replaced one for one. Individual tour intervals are thus often measured in months not years. The problem is exacerbated by under-strength units who require to ‘borrow’ bayonet strength from other units, who in their turn are further depleted in numbers and individual tour interval times. Some soldiers are turned around on operations within a month or two. This massive pressure must in turn increase the chances of long-term psychological damage to our soldiers.
The Royal Air Force Britain has been, and is very likely to continue to be, involved in conflicts just about anywhere in the world, and as signatories of the NATO Alliance we guarantee under Article V to defend all member states. In the fast-changing world of the future, the RAF has to be able to respond swiftly and efficiently to new challenges wherever Britain’s interests are threatened. In any potential theatre the RAF would be a vital element in the full spectrum of operations. Yet many of the recent cuts to fund the much-needed improvements in Afghanistan have been found from the daily running budget of the RAF. Several ground-attack squadrons have been or are about to be withdrawn. The RAF still fields an ageing and expensive fleet, many of which are legacy aircraft from the Cold War and several are 20 years old or more. From a Cold War complement of 93,000 men and women are now fewer than 40,000. Combat aircraft numbers are down by more than half. The severe and continued government underfunding since 1991 makes many of the RAF’s capabilities either just token or unachievable. It takes 15 years or more to design, build and introduce a modern combat aircraft with a service life of approximately 30 years. All the wars since 1945 arrived with little warning, and we must assume that in future conflicts there will to be no time to build more aircraft and no time to train a new generation of crews. This means that whatever the RAF is called upon to do, it will go with the forces in being. Currently, these forces conceal a number of weaknesses. The Royal Air Force was born from the air attacks on London in 1917. Defending our skies is a sine qua non, not only over the UK, but in any theatres that British Forces operate. Though we now have the Typhoon in the fighter role, technologically we are slipping behind: the US already has the F-22, a 5th-generation stealthy fighter and, on 29 January 2010, the Russians flew the T-50, their first 5thgeneration aircraft. China is known to be following suit and other nations in turn are seeking to acquire 5th-generation aircraft. These aircraft will change the face of the air battle. Without air superiority all other operations become difficult, if not impossible. Witness the plight of the Wehrmacht in 1944/45, and even the Royal Navy in the Falklands in 1982. Just imagine, for example, how different ISAF operations in Helmand might be if Iran took control of the skies. In Afghanistan, the RAF is as much a part of the conflict as the Army – not just in the obvious roles of air transport (both heavy and rotary), but also in intelligence gathering, radar surveillance of the ground, in UAV operations against Taliban/Al Qaida forces and finally, in the impact of air warnings and the delivery of weapons. Air power substitutes for many thousands of ground forces, and without the RAF’s vital contribution costs would rise and troop levels would have to at least treble. Operations in the Middle East, and in remote locations such as the Falklands, stretch the remaining RAF establishment. With only eight ageing operational Tornado fighters to defend our northern skies the new Typhoon is essential for our air defences both in Europe and beyond. With the multi-role (Tranche 2 and 3) aircraft now ordered, this aircraft will also be able to switch from air defence one day to ground attack the next, providing the flexibility that is so cost-effective. Though Typhoon is at last being deployed in numbers, the future of the Harrier and the Tornado bomber forces are now in question, but their replacement, the JSF F-35, carrier-capable aircraft, remains unfunded and (in the variant we have decided upon) very short-range. However, until the JSF’s arrival (in 2018?), the RAF will lack any 5th-generation Stealth capability so essential to suppress and destroy enemy air defences; without that capability even the Typhoon would prove highly vulnerable. If we are to retain an effective air capability on a modern battlefield it is essential for this JSF procurement to go ahead. On the helicopter front there has, at last, been a ray of hope. Twenty-two new Chinooks were ordered in December 2009 to bolster the fleet and make up for battle losses. Despite the recent deployment of the moribund eight Chinooks (see above), until 2012 – when the first of the 22 new Chinooks might arrive – we will continue to have far too few helicopters to defend and transport our troops in Afghanistan. While the recent announcement also stated an intention to procure additional Reaper UAVs, we wait to see if sufficient have been procured to meet the threats. Our maritime patrol forces face a perilous future. The decision was taken in previous years to reduce the Nimrod MRA4 order from 21 to just nine aircraft, leaving the UK with barely a token capability for controlling the sea lanes. Moreover, a decision on replacing the R1 Intelligence version of this aircraft has been “delayed indefinitely”, leaving a permanent gap in our capability, a capability equally vital right across the board – in all future operations, both high-tech and low. For the past two years, the UKNDA has argued that we desperately need far more and newer transport aircraft. Much of the existing fleet is 30 years old, expensive to maintain and ecologically unsound. Although the A-400M has at last flown, with A400M30 deliveries postponed for probably another 3-5 years or more, there remains a strong case to cancel that troubled contract and switch to the much cheaper, more capable and available C-17s and C130-Js. Fortunately some of our words have been heeded – at least in part – and an additional C-17 is to be procured. Though the Royal Air Force can just manage to meet its current operational commitments, it is so run-down in numbers and capability that if there were there to be a conventional war in Europe the RAF would be unable to meet any war-fighting commitments by a wide margin. It will be for the SDR to establish the minimum force levels necessary for current operations and then to show how that force might be quickly ‘ramped-up’ should more strategic threats begin to materialise. In sum, the RAF remains under-resourced both for the responsibilities it is already undertaking and, more importantly for the many tasks it may be called to undertake in future; the SDR must address this deficit. What the UKNDA proposes: We urge politicians of all parties and persuasions to support and commit to an immediate and sustained real increase in the percentage of GDP allocated annually for defence from its current 2.2% to at least 3%; this would represent an increase of 35-40% over present levels of funding. For more than a quarter of a century governments of all persuasions have constantly cut defence funding and lowered defence in the nation’s list of priorities. Money ‘saved’ from the defence budgets has been poured into the big-spending departments – health, education and, above all, ‘welfare’ in all its many forms. The UKNDA contends that the severe over-stretch and under-funding of our Armed Forces, and the adverse effect this has upon the nation’s defence, dictates that it is now ‘payback time’. We must stop the salami-slicing of the Armed Forces. Instead, year on year, we need to take just a penny in the pound – 1% – from the inflated budgets of the big-spending departments and reallocate the sums saved to the defence of the United Kingdom. Put truth back into the oft-repeated claims of all politicians that: DEFENCE IS THE FIRST PRIORITY OF ANY GOVERNMENT. APPENDIX The Threats By Winston S. Churchill, Founder-President, UKNDA* We live in a dangerous and unstable world. Following the demise of the Soviet Union, the direction and nature of the threats to the security of the UK and her interests worldwide are more diverse and even less predictable. Looking back over the past 25 years, there were few who foresaw Argentina’s attack on the Falkland Islands in 1982, Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, or the Al Qaeda attack on the Twin Towers that provoked the Allied retaliation against Afghanistan. Since the time required to bring major new equipment programmes into service for any of the three Services is in the range of 10-15 years, any future conflict will essentially have to be fought with the equipment ordered today. There will be no time to build & equip new divisions for the Army, new squadrons for the RAF or new ships for the Royal Navy – hence the vital necessity of the UK maintaining a serious, strong and balanced Defence capability.
*Winston S. Churchill, our Founder-President, died on 2 March 2010. |
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Posts
