Regretfully, the powers that be in Whitehall, London display scant knowledge of recent military history by failing to recognise the lack of strategic utility of their land-based tactical fighter aircraft that are not capable of operating from aircraft carriers. This continues to result in an unwise balance of Defence Budget investment that limits the scope of U.K.’s important naval support for the Allied global deterrence of those that would harm us, particularly in the Indo Pacific region.
In an article by Jonathan Beale, Defence correspondent, BBC News, U.K.’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is quoted as saying the following:
“The security of the United Kingdom, both today and for future generations, will always be of paramount importance to this government.” A commendable platitude that is not backed up by his further statements.
“For the UK, this agreement is not just about security but also economics. The hope is that developing a new fighter jet could create and sustain thousands of UK jobs and open doors to more arms exports.” Here, he immediately contradicts his opening statement at paragraph 2 a, above. The two previous UK/European collaborative fighter projects, Tornado and Typhoon, cost the taxpayer approximately £300 billion and did little to enhance the security of the United Kingdom or its global maritime interests East of Suez. As short-range land-based fighter aircraft they had/have no relevance at all to the threats facing us in the Indo Pacific region. Nor will this new fighter project, Tempest, have any relevance or justification unless the aircraft is specifically designed for embarkation in our aircraft carriers.
“The next-generation of combat aircraft we design will protect us and our allies around the world by harnessing the strength of our world-beating defence industry – creating jobs while saving lives.” Not true! See paragraph 2 b, above.
Mr Sunak said the partnership would “keep the country safe from the new threats that we face.” I cannot fathom how a relatively short range, land-based, non-carrier capable fighter aircraft can contribute with any significance to countering the serious threat posed by China in the Indo Pacific region.
Our Prime Minister would do well to study and remember the infamous Lie presented to the government by the Royal Air Force in 1967 that, “the RAF can provide air defence of the fleet throughout the oceans of the world” and that, “therefore we do not need aircraft carriers”. Since then, they have clearly demonstrated that it is impossible for them to keep this promise.
If the military aspects of the Tempest project are to be led by the RAF, then the malfeasance behind the 1967 decision is likely to continue. This sad state of affairs can be avoided if the Prime Minister and his government insist that the new aircraft must be fully carrier capable and that its prime utility, in support of our global national security interests and those of our allies, will be when it is deployed in our aircraft carriers.
If he fails to do so, his platitudes as given to the BBC will be worthless and will, in themselves, represent a significant threat to our future national security and international influence.
It would be interesting to learn how the USA is progressing with their own D of Defence purchases. Are they too increasing their land based aircraft at the expense of Carrier borne a/c?
It would be interesting to learn how the USA is progressing with their own D of Defence purchases. Are they too increasing their land based aircraft at the expense of Carrier borne a/c?