Something I've often asked
myself is why there is such a fixation in some quarters about the numbers game
in defence. As a nation we so often focus on why we have 'only’ got X planes or Y
ships deploying on a operation without looking at the bigger picture. For instance,
in the Daily Mail today, there is an article (HERE)
which suggests that the UK has no spare Tornadoes, and would apparently be a
laughing stock if it deployed to operations in Syria.
Perhaps the first question to
ask is ‘why’? Why would it matter if the UK only deployed 12 Tornadoes to
Cyprus to conduct ops in Syria. The UK contribution in the Middle East is
already more substantial than any other nation bar the US, and currently
France. By this I mean that there is a wide ranging and hugely capable force in
the region. This includes strike aircraft, RPAS assets, ISTAR platforms and
tankers etc plus a substantial sovereign infrastructure at RAF Akrotiri – this
all adds up into a very potent force, providing real capability to the coalition
efforts in the region. Before we start flogging ourselves to death over a small
number of aircraft that may or may not contribute, lets focus on what is
already doing sterling work in the region and build on that.
What would additional
capability mean to the package that’s already there? Part of the challenge in building
a coalition is to try and get a broad range of assets into play – too many
nations seem to want to contribute the high end ‘sexy stuff’ like fast jets.
But what are they there to do? One only has to look at whats going on in Iraq
to realise that while there is a wide need for airpower in all its many guises,
there isn’t necessarily a huge list of targets to choose from on a daily basis.
You only need to look at the MOD website to realise that the list of targets
being hit on OP SHADER is often not that high – while there is a need for daily
flights in the region, it’s often the case that targets are not often readily
apparent.
A wider point I think people
often forget is that too often we focus on the headline figure of ‘only 8’
without thinking about what that actually means. A commitment to 8 aircraft
means a sustained deployment of 8 airframes able to meet any tasking asked of
them on an enduring 24/7 basis until the end of the operation. This is actually
quite a draining thing to do – many nations can do a short term detachment,
maybe for 6 months, and then reduce or change their commitment. This so-called
surge capability is at the heart of many nations defence planning (e.g. the UK
is committed to surging 50,000 personnel and equipment on a deployment as its
ultimate goal). But there is a big difference between short term surges and
long term drumbeats of operations.
To keep 8 aircraft flying and
available, and to then add a further 50% to the force means asking a lot – it’s
not just the planes turning up on the day, it’s the availability of airframes
back in the UK. It’s the extra ground crew, support staff, logistics and all
manner of other kit that is needed to keep the deployment on the road. This isn’t
easy to do and actually places a lot of stress on the Force. So, when throwing
figures around about deployments, I always try to remember that its not just
the aircraft on the frontline, but the wider support elements we need to keep
track of too. If you surge for one big operation, then you run the real risk of
not being able to properly sustain and support ongoing operations for some time
to come.
For instance at the moment
there is some cover in the UK press about the French deploying Charles De
Gaulle (their carrier) out to the Middle East, and using it for airstrikes.
While this will temporarily bring an additional 24-30 jets into the region, it’s
not sustainable for the medium term and can only support operations until she
needs to withdraw for maintenance or return home – at which point there is no
other capability available. So, for a short term surge, it makes the French
provide a hugely potent and impressive capability. For medium – long term sustainability,
she is less useful.
But it’s easy to be seduced by
the argument that an impressive visual capability now means more than a long term
low key presence, despite the latter arguably having more long term impact and effect.
The Tornado force itself isn’t
easily able to generate large numbers of aircraft – its’ an older fleet now,
and while exceptionally capable, is running down in terms of both fleet numbers
and crews.to sustain it on longer term operations will require careful
management of the force and its people to ensure that its able to do what is
asked of it. There is no point surging it all for a 6 month period if this
places too great a strain on the support system and prevents the UK from
sustaining the deployment.
To my mind too, the question I
try to understand when I see articles like this is ‘what exactly are we trying
to prove here’? Its’ all very well saying that the UK is somehow less relevant
simply because it happens to not have that large a specific force or assets deployed
on one mission or another – but why does this matter? It won’t substantially
change the UK’s position in the world as a major diplomatic, economic or
political power. Having 8 or 12 not 24 or 72 bombers for the long haul won’t
significantly alter the speed of victory. I do think this is about long term commitment
and not short term posturing that makes the difference here.
It feels that there is a
desire to do the UK down and say ‘we don’t matter’ not because we aren’t contributing,
but because people don’t seem to understand that sustained campaigns will be
won over time. This is a long marathon of a race identifying targets carefully,
not a short term sprint in a target rich environment.
To my mind the
self-flagellation we’re seeing comes from a generation which looks back to the
world of 50-70 years ago where large numbers of military equipment was needed
to have an effect, and where enormous armies were commonplace. Today the world
is a vastly different place, and military technology has changed significantly.
The need for large forces has been replaced by a need for precision effect, and
accurate targeting. There is no popular public support for striking indiscriminately
to take out targets (and rightly so), but this does mean that the large forces
of yesteryear are no longer affordable, replaced instead with good quality, but
smaller, numbers of highly capable aircraft.
What the UK can seem to
provide to any air campaign in Syria is the same as Iraq – first rate aircraft
with a diverse package of capability (particularly the Brimstone missile) and
sensors which enable not only kinetic action to be taken, but also good intelligence gathered
too (the RAPTOR pod on the GR4 is a particularly good example of this). The UK
may not be deploying in large numbers, but it is deploying kit that is needed,
is valued by our allies and keenly sought after, as part of our wider forces.
We should be wary of doing ourselves down too much, knowing that we’ve got a
very competent capability out there that can be sustained for the long haul.
