Main Edition
US
FR
November 20, 2020 - 4:32pm
The Government’s announcement yesterday of the greatest budget increase for the armed forces since the Cold War came as a pleasant surprise after the dark mutterings of cuts that have surrounded the forthcoming SDSR. At his best — and admittedly at his worst — the Prime Minister is given to announcing grand, ambitious infrastructural projects, and in this case his pledge to make the UK “the foremost naval power in Europe” is both welcome and achievable.
Johnson was surely correct to observe that “the international situation is more perilous and more intensely competitive than at any time since the Cold War,” and as an island nation dependent on the free flow of world trade, reversing the decades of cuts which saw our surface fleet dwindle to dangerously thin levels is an unalloyed good.
What this means for Britain’s strategic posture is not entirely clear: if the emphasis on the Navy is reflected by a de-emphasis on the Army, perhaps including a reduction in the size of our armoured force, then it implies we do not intend our future NATO role to be centred on a significant deployment to Eastern Europe to deter potential Russian aggression. This is not a bad thing in itself, and has been urged by some defence analysts for some time — Poland is already modernising its armed forces for just such a role, and we can expect the incoming Biden administration to continue Trump’s chiding of Germany for shirking its NATO responsibilities in this area.
Similarly, we can hope that the emphasis on sea power will allow our planners time to decide what it is we want the Army to do in future, and give us breathing space to rebuild our creaking military infrastructure. We are living through a period of rapid technological change likely to dramatically change the battlespace of the near future, as shown by the recently concluded war in Karabakh, and space to coolly assess its full implications is not necessarily a bad thing. The deployment of a new generation of combat drones by the middle-sized powers likely to be our future adversaries presents a challenge without a clear solution, and Johnson’s pledge to invest in defence research and development, including Directed Energy Weapons and accelerated space research, is an encouraging sign.
As a predominantly naval power, if this is the plan, Britain will have two potential roles around which our grand strategy will revolve. The first is a modest task as a North Atlantic power, protecting the sea lanes around our home islands and up to the high Arctic, which is a realistic and modest aspiration likely to be encouraged by the US. The second aspiration — implied by Johnson’s urging us not to “curl up in our island” — is as a force projecting, expeditionary power, likely focussed on the Pacific and Far East, a declaration of intent shown by the deployment of the new Carrier Strike Group East of Suez next year.
As I’ve argued in these pages, we should be wary of Global Britain rhetoric pushing us into a future naval confrontation with China. China’s naval arms race with the US will be one of the central facts of the coming decades of great power rivalry, and British prime ministers of the near future will likely find themselves urged to take part in a subordinate role. The greater our naval capacity, the greater the temptation to use it, whether or not it’s in our national interest to do so.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt may be a nod in the right direction, but I do not think it is ground breaking. We used to spend 3-4% of GDP on defence, now it barely manages 2%, that is a lot of ground to catch up.
Why would it not be in our interest to curb the power of a communist dictatorship aka China?
If you think China is nice and cuddly, look what it is actually doing.
A million Muslims kept in re-education camps.
A power grab of the South China sea.
The destruction of democracy in Hong Kong.
Yes, it is frightening to think of standing up to China, but think what will happen if we do not.
How many Admirals/Vice Admirals/Rear Admirals do you need to operate a fleet of 75 ships? Answer – 34 according to RN figures. The organisation seems a bit top heavy to me…..probably the weight of all that brass! The web tells me that the US navy has 45 Admirals/Vice Admirals and over 490 ships. So can we expect a Royal Navy fleet at least 370 ships?
@carl goulding. It’s always been the same. In the 1980s we had about 40 or 50 frigates and destroyers with a total of about 100 ships. We had a similarly large ratio of Admirals in those days. The RN is reducing the number of Admirals but it’s a slow process of merging departments but the RN is ahead of both the Army and RAF in this project!
The author states that the future RN can expect to have two tasks. “The first is a modest task as a North Atlantic power, protecting the sea lanes around our home islands and up to the high Arctic, which is a realistic and modest aspiration…”
Well, I don’t think he’s been keeping up on the improvements in Russia’s submarine capability in recent years. They have invested in new, exceptionally quiet boats and I think the RN faces a real challenge if it came to deterring or defeating them. Eight Type 26 ASW frigates are a good platform upon which to build, but it’s hard to say with certainty that they’ll be sufficient.
I draw two policy conclusions from this:
1. We should prioritise the North Atlantic task over the Power Projection task and ensure that the former is fully-funded first; and
2. We should be investing in deepening our relationships with both Norway and Canada on this subject. The RCN in particular could provide a vital contribution to the capability.
@Will Judge. Our friends in the RCN have also purchased the T26 frigate, which is a good start. The trouble is that a lot of our sea trade doesn’t just travers the North Atlantic. A lot of it comes from the Far East. If we’re thinking of protecting supply routes we do need an ability to project beyond Suez/Cape of Good Hope.
Surely we should expect that launching drones from ships – and then informing them via satellite – is the right direction to pursue.
Which works very well until the ship is sunk. Alas, the day of the ships except as troop and material transports is probably over, when missiles can be launched from concrete bunkers and sent around the world and down the bad person’s chimney!
@Ian Barton. It already is. The RN already makes use of drones in the air, on the surface and submerged. It’s a rapidly expanding area of R&D. The issue is that planners/advisers have sometimes taken the view that you can launch and control weapons from thousands of miles away with virtual impunity. It doesn’t work that easily. You need a ‘platform’ in-theatre from which to launch with well trained professionals able to make on the spot decisions. A naval vessel offers you that platform. It sits in international waters without requiring a ‘friendly’ nation offering you their facilities. Satellites are very vulnerable to interception of transmission, jamming etc.
“The greater our naval capacity, the greater the temptation to use it, whether or not it’s in our national interest to do so.”
There is the rub. Our politicians seem to believe that our national interest is whatever the American government tells them it is. So, I would rather not have armed forces than can project force globally. I am not being anti-american – But I am not prepared to fight their wars for them.
The services always want more. I would think our 7 attack subs are as formidable a force as one could want. The Three Astute class alone are a match for any surface fleet. I would not want to be at sea with them about.
Surely they are enough along with our surface ships to protect these islands.
@Dave Smith. ‘Protect these islands’. From what threat? Our fleet isn’t even close to big enough if someone really was trying to use submarines to starve us. The Germans almost managed it twice in the 20th century when the population was much smaller. An Astute boat is formidable but each one can only be in one place. They can strike fear in to an opponent but it’s a single platform with a finite number of weapons in the fore-ends. Then it has to come back to be reloaded.
In recent history the RN has fought proper sea battles every 20 years – in this respect we are about due one (1982, 2003 (Tony’s phoney war))! However when not fighting battles, the RN can do a very good job for UK in forging and strengthening alliances around the world which enhance global security and trade. Naval forces are fairly unique in that respect.
If only we had had all this kit in place in January Covid 19 wouldn’t have dared set for in Britain. WE have to assume that this announcement is just another of Johnson’s delusions of grandeur and none of this expenditure will ever happen