One of the serious problems that we have with Whitehall is that, quite often, Ministers and Civil Servants are often appointed to run Ministries without any expertise or experience relating to that Ministry. It is akin to stuffing a square peg into a round hole. I recall with dismay the once Permanent Under-Secretary to the Minister of Defence, Ursula Brennan overseeing our Armed Forces and displaying complete ignorance concerning the strategic operational needs of the Royal Navy in particular. Those needs are irrevocably linked to UK’s effective National Security.
Like Ursula Brennan, Baroness Goldie appears to address the deployment of our 2 new strike carrier capital warships and their fixed wing air groups more as a videogame rather than a vital part of UK’s Strategic Maritime Policy and Power Projection Capability.
On 8 September 2022, Lord West of Spithead asked, “when the Royal Navy will be able to deploy a carrier with the full complement of 36 United Kingdom-owned F35B in its air wing?
The Baroness replied as follows: “My Lords, the noble Lord’s figure of 36 F35B as the optimum deployment for a carrier is not a measurement recognised within the MoD. Each Queen Elizabeth-class carrier has been designed for the flexible usage necessary in a modern defence capability, including transporting a mix of fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, but the composition and size of an embarked air group in a deploying carrier will be tailored to meet the operational requirement.”
The Baroness does not understand the need for our Fleet Weapon System to be fully integrated when being deployed either as a Carrier Battle Group or as part of a larger Expeditionary Task Force. Such integration between sub-surface, surface and airborne units is very complex and, to be effective, requires regular intensive training and exercise – including with our Allies. This is especially true regarding the embarkation and deployment of fixed wing fighter air defence air groups. More so when some units are land-based squadrons with little if any embarked experience. Such units require lengthy hands-on acclimatization and training before they can be considered an operationally efficient part of the Fleet Weapon System.
Last minute, crisis management (e.g. embarking untrained land-based air squadrons that have not been fully exposed to the demands of Naval Warfare and of Naval Air Warfare) is not conducive to effective rapid response at a time of global National Security interest. We are not playing a video game here. National Prosperity and Security is at stake. Weak responses such as, “not a measurement recognised within the MoD” (referring to a 36 strong F-35B embarked air group in a time of need) do not inspire confidence in the frontline.
Baroness Goldie’s remark, “We need the capacity to be sure that, depending on operational requirement, we have these F35s, both land based and, if necessary, ship based, which is a sensible proposition to advance.” reflects a worrying lack of understanding of why UK has procured the F-35B. We did so specifically to provide operationally effective Air Groups for our carriers. The phrase, “and, if necessary, ship based” underlines the misinformation that has been fed to the Minister and makes a mockery of Britain’s declared Strategic Maritime Policy.
Neglect of that Policy and of the need to train and deploy UK’s F-35B aircraft as part of the Fleet Weapon System is reflected in the written Question by Lord West and Answer by Baroness Goldie.
Question: Lord West: Tabled on: 26 September 2022.
“To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer from Baroness Goldie on 20 September (HL2197), how many days at sea (1) HMS Queen Elizabeth, and (2) HMS Prince of Wales, have had since their acceptance by the Royal Navy; and on how many of those days operational F-35 jets have embarked. (HL2379)”
Answer: Baroness Goldie: 10 October 2022.
“HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH has had 603 days at sea since vessel acceptance date, with operational F-35 jets embarked on 278 of those days.
HMS PRINCE OF WALES has had 267 days at sea since vessel acceptance date, with operational F-35 jets embarked on 13 of those days.”
These figures are depressing and arguably unacceptable, especially when some of this embarked time was conducted by US Marine Corps aircraft, not UK aircraft.
It is ALWAYS the Politicians who send our armed forces to battle but without any knowledge of how to fight, still maintain control. Why? Their talk is so very cheap compared to the enormous planning and logistics involved and if a naïve Politico is allowed to determine how the hardware is to be utilised, we only have to look at Russia to see ‘what happens next’. Politicos! If you send us into a fight, stand back and let the real professionals do their job and keep out of it. Now, it’s time the PM/MoD appointed those very professions to run that department and get the job done. Properly..
It is ALWAYS the Politicians who send our armed forces to battle but without any knowledge of how to fight, still maintain control. Why?
Their talk is so very cheap compared to the enormous planning and logistics involved and if a naïve Politico is allowed to determine how the hardware is to be utilised, we only have to look at Russia to see ‘what happens next’.
Politicos! If you send us into a fight, stand back and let the real professionals do their job and keep out of it.
Now, it’s time the PM/MoD appointed those very professions to run that department and get the job done. Properly..