Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Facing budget cuts, UK navy sets lofty ambitions

* Navy chief defends heavy military spending ahead of review
* Fear of budget cuts brings friction between army, navy

By Estelle Shirbon
Defense News ~ LONDON, Jan 19 (Reuters) - Britain's naval chief on Tuesday defended spending on aircraft carriers and major hardware, as lobbying for cash intensified ahead of a defence review.
Admiral Mark Stanhope acknowledged budgetary constraints at a time when Britain is struggling to emerge from recession and cope with a deficit forecast to reach 12 percent of GDP, but he nevertheless laid out an ambitious agenda for his service.
"I must retain and develop the quality to deliver success across the full spectrum of defence activity up to and including high intensity warfare," Stanhope said in a speech.
He insisted on flexibility, urging the government to look beyond the Afghan conflict and ensure that the armed forces are prepared for "surprises and strategic shocks" in coming decades.
Whichever party wins an election due by June, the next government will conduct an in-depth review of defence priorities and the amount of money allocated to each service.
But the Ministry of Defence is just one of many government departments that will struggle to shield their budgets from the Treasury's eye as it looks for costs it can reduce.
While the government has yet to give a breakdown of spending cuts, media speculation that some areas could see funding cut by up to 17 percent has raised anxiety levels, with advocates of universities among those already kicking up a fuss.
HARD POWER
Fighting the navy's corner, Stanhope defended a delayed and costly programme to build two aircraft carriers, saying these were a requirement of the British military as a whole.
"People that keep turning around and talking about 'the navy's carriers' have missed the point entirely. These carriers are about supporting (troops) ashore, not protecting a fleet."
His views contrasted with comments from the army chief, who said on Monday that new forms of warfare and tight budgets required giving priority to troops on the ground capable of winning over hearts and minds on a mass scale. [ID:nLDE60H2KX]
General David Richards spoke of "reducing investment in higher-end war-fighting capability" and suggested that foreign allies could make up for a lack of any particular equipment.
Stanhope was at pains to stress that he and his army colleague were "not at loggerheads" and were merely engaging in a "well-articulated debate" ahead of the strategic review, but he did acknowledge the potential for friction.
"My business, and where I am pushing harder maybe than he is, is that I'm about using armed force to be a deterrent mechanism to try and prevent the engagement ashore," he said.
"But if engagement ashore is what is required and it is what the nation decides is important, then we need to make sure we can do that properly."
Stanhope said the armed forces recognised the importance of activities like peacekeeping, humanitarian missions and diplomacy, but they should not lose sight of their basic role.
"These soft power activities and the benefits that accrue from them depend on the underpinning credibility of our armed forces through success on operations and their ability to fight and win wars, which is our ability to deliver 'hard power'."

No comments:

Post a Comment