Over the past 6 decades the defence debate in the UK has been based upon anachronistic values and a hypocritical lack of support for and evaluation of our Armed Forces by Governments and a Civil Service that have not properly considered global military events during that period.
The 2021 Integrated Defence and Security Review coupled with commendable work by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee (DSC) has signalled a return to common sense and a healthy support of a robust Strategic Maritime Policy. But, as we approach the 40th anniversary of the 1982 Falklands War, there remains much to be done in military procurement and oversight terms if we are to play a convincing role in the policing of the Global Commons in conjunction with our Allies. It is upon the effectiveness of such policing with visible Naval Power that our future prosperity and national security depends.
Victory in the 82 War was achieved by our Naval and Land Forces. It could not have been achieved without our 2 aircraft carriers, HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes and their Sea Harrier air groups, who together deterred and defeated the Argentinian fighter bomber onslaught.
Despite this fact, a massive propaganda campaign has been conducted by Ministry of Defence/Air and their tame Academics to deny the Royal Navy its aircraft carriers. That campaign failed with respect to aircraft carriers but, as a side effect, it has led to the dangerous, unwarranted and unjustified reduction in the size of our Fleet.
This has now proven to be a serious impediment to the national interest and has been formally recognised by the DSC: “We need a bigger Navy”.
Satisfying that need in a timely and effective manner can only be achieved if we pare down investment in and the size of both the Army and the RAF: particularly the latter. Continued heavy investment in that Service without proper and balanced justification against perceived global threats would prevent us achieving the goals encompassed within our Strategic Maritime Policy.
What is likely to be a major “white elephant” in UK’s future military procurement allotment is the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) program for the Tempest fighter aircraft. There appears to have been no military justification for the whimsically named FCAS. The DSC and the Government must demand that such justification is undertaken before another penny is spent on this project. Without such oversight and based on recent experience with the Typhoon project and the Tornado project, it is almost certain that the end-result will be a land-based, non-carrier-capable fighter aircraft that has no role in policing the Global Commons. A large portion of our defence budget would have been spent without any effective bang for the buck.
As far as I am aware, the design team developing the Tempest Project has not received any firm remit from the Ministry of Defence or from the Government to ensure that, as a priority, the contracted specification for the proposed fighter aircraft solution is to be fully capable of embarked carrier operations – and without any modification to the basic design.
We must not forget that the Queen Elizabeth carriers were contracted for with “a proviso that, during development and build, they should be easily converted to a catapult and arrestor gear flight deck configuration without extra cost”. But the contract was written in a manner that did not oblige the contractor to comply with this provision. As a result, our new carriers do not enjoy the capability to embark an air group with all the elements required for full Strike Carrier flexibility. We shall have to rely on our Allies to provide such elements during operations, e.g. a Defence Suppression Capability.
We must not make the same mistake again through contractual ineptitude and/or partisan pressure from MOD/Air.
It is disturbing to note and should concern both the DSC and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), that the public announcement of the Tempest Project came with a reported commitment of £2 billion to the design process (after just 3 months work). That is an insane amount of money for a project that does not yet have a fully approved and detailed specification. It would be better spent on the procurement of 12 more much-needed F-35B fighter aircraft for our carriers.
The initial published photograph of how a Tempest aircraft might look demonstrates that British Aerospace Systems and the MOD in collusion are putting the cart before the horse. Are they now going to fashion their expensive design work around the depicted aircraft that is clearly not suitable for embarked carrier operations?
Questions that need to be asked in Whitehall include:
Is the right priority being given to this aircraft being fully capable of embarkation in and operation from the decks of aircraft carriers?
What is the specific planned role of this aircraft in the context of perceived global threats to our trade and energy supply routes?
How many aircraft will be needed to satisfy that role?
What will be the specified combat radius of action of the aircraft and with what weapons system and weapons load?
Upon what factors is the £2 billion initial design cost based/justified?
What are the formally assessed detailed development costs likely to be?
What is the target unit production cost?
Until all these questions are answered satisfactorily (and there will be more) is it not fiscally irresponsible to move forward with this project?
The way ahead for Britain’s future military and political power projection capability has been firmly signalled. Investment in weapon systems that do not fully support this way ahead deserves critical scrutiny and, where appropriate, revision.
Hello Sharkey, much of what you say in this article is correct. However I feel that there is not a snowflake’s hope in hell that the Tempest program will be stopped. There is just too much industrial interest tied up in it. As a technology leader it has a lot going for it and the spin off’s should be beneficially considerable. However, I understand that the airframe configuration is not yet completely finalised and so maybe the best that can be done is for energy to be put into lobbying for an awakening of the limitations that are being designed into what can be a world beater. To that end, your article as spurred me into writing one extolling the reasons why the Tempest should be not only be carrier compatible but, by default, also short field capable. With UK forces increasingly being optimised for expeditionary warfare there are real signs that the aircraft, as presently intended, will be operationally hamstrung and very possibly left at home when the boys go off to fight. The article will be written initially for the DefenceUK website but I will give you a preview for comment. Incidentally, if you have not already read it, I recommend the journal from Airforces Magazine called ‘Typhoon to Tempest, the evolution of a sixth generation fighter’ – ISBN 978-1-913870-53-9. Merry Christmas.
I agree the Tempest is a huge waste of money and the UK can’t afford it. I am certain it will be cancelled once the idiot Boris gets thrown out of parliament. As to carriers they are a good idea but of there has been far too many cut backs to the RN to help pay for them. The RN does a lot of good work it’s just like during WW2 they don’t the credit they need to get the funding they need. If the UK government stopped helping their rich friends with ways of avoiding paying their fair share of taxes then they could properly fund the UK armed forces. But also the way so many projects are managed like the Ajax APC makes me wonder why don’t they give project management to people who actually know what they are doing.
Keep up the good work Sharkey
Hello Sharkey, much of what you say in this article is correct. However I feel that there is not a snowflake’s hope in hell that the Tempest program will be stopped. There is just too much industrial interest tied up in it. As a technology leader it has a lot going for it and the spin off’s should be beneficially considerable. However, I understand that the airframe configuration is not yet completely finalised and so maybe the best that can be done is for energy to be put into lobbying for an awakening of the limitations that are being designed into what can be a world beater. To that end, your article as spurred me into writing one extolling the reasons why the Tempest should be not only be carrier compatible but, by default, also short field capable. With UK forces increasingly being optimised for expeditionary warfare there are real signs that the aircraft, as presently intended, will be operationally hamstrung and very possibly left at home when the boys go off to fight. The article will be written initially for the DefenceUK website but I will give you a preview for comment. Incidentally, if you have not already read it, I recommend the journal from Airforces Magazine called ‘Typhoon to Tempest, the evolution of a sixth generation fighter’ – ISBN 978-1-913870-53-9. Merry Christmas.
I agree the Tempest is a huge waste of money and the UK can’t afford it. I am certain it will be cancelled once the idiot Boris gets thrown out of parliament. As to carriers they are a good idea but of there has been far too many cut backs to the RN to help pay for them. The RN does a lot of good work it’s just like during WW2 they don’t the credit they need to get the funding they need. If the UK government stopped helping their rich friends with ways of avoiding paying their fair share of taxes then they could properly fund the UK armed forces. But also the way so many projects are managed like the Ajax APC makes me wonder why don’t they give project management to people who actually know what they are doing.