Latest news with #StrategicDefenceReview
Spectator
a day ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Gagging the military is a mistake
Some weeks ago at an army conference I listened to senior officers discussing the lethal, agile, 'integrated' British military of the future as set out in the government's recent Strategic Defence Review. Unfortunately I can't tell you what they said. The Chief of the General Staff Sir Roly Walker answered questions on what the SDR meant for the army. I can't tell you what he said either. Officers attending the conference were apparently told that, if they found themselves in accidental conversation with a journalist, they were to extricate themselves immediately. At a time of increased focus on national defence, it was a poor day for transparency. This was not a one off. A new Downing Street diktat bans senior officers (and also civil servants, diplomats and other public officials) from speaking at events that include question and answer sessions, or where the media is expected to be in attendance. Only ministers can now represent the government position. Officials have even been told not to speak to journalists on background. This unprecedented gag weakens public understanding of defence, is self-defeating, and displays an astonishing lack of trust. Relations between soldiers and governments have never been easy. Senior officers have often plunged into the political fray to gain institutional or budgetary advantage. Churchill's generals bemoaned his interference in military affairs; he in turn criticised their politicking and lack of strategic acumen. More recently, the concentration of financial and political power within the Ministry of Defence at the expense of the individual military services has curtailed open professional policy discussion. Post-Cold War spats over defence cuts, and the course of conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya also left a legacy of distrust. David Cameron famously told his generals in 2011 to do the fighting while he did the talking. Although governments have always sought to control 'the narrative', recently a persistent pattern has emerged of the government trying to prevent those working in defence in the public sector from communicating with the outside world via experts, think tanks and the media. In January 2024, General Walker's predecessor was slapped down for his misinterpreted comments about Britain needing a 'whole of nation' approach to defence (a wise view now embedded in the SDR). In April this year, the Chief of Defence Staff Tony Radakin addressed the National Defence University in Beijing. The MoD did not tell the public about the visit or what he said; we all first heard about it via the Chinese Ministry of Defence. Keir Starmer has promised 'transparency in everything we do', but defence reporters tell me that No. 10 is obsessed with a narrow defence message about jobs and domestic growth, not the risk of war with Russia or why investment is required. Backdrops, buzzwords and bland platitudes are prioritised over informed content. Media visits to defence establishments have been reduced and briefings curtailed; Labour ministers have decreed that every MoD press release should have a political message. The situation is not helped by a reactive, defensive MoD press operation focused on the news of the day rather than wider themes. Spin often gets in the way of substance. This is all unwise. Firstly, the clamp down reduces public understanding. Hard pressed ministers do not have the time nor professional knowledge to be able to explain the breadth and complexity of activity across defence. Some are better communicators than others. Those checking speeches in No. 10 lack experience, often erring on the side of caution, further reducing clarity. This means the official view can be poorly reflected, or reflected in strange ways by blocking mid-ranking subject matter experts from engaging directly. Secondly, the gag actively works against the government's own agenda. Defence is now the stated top priority of this government. The SDR recommended 'reconnecting defence with society'. This will be difficult. With the UK military so small, the public see less and less of it. Fewer have a direct family connection with it. Only half of the population believe spending on defence should increase. Less believe that increasing defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP, as promised the recent Nato summit, should come at the expense of health, welfare or benefits. Changing these perspectives requires more, not less, public discourse to build understanding and confidence. Thirdly, although politicians – rightly – should be the primary voice for a 'national conversation led by the government' on defence, senior officers and officials can assist them by explaining, supporting, clarifying and emphasising policy. Political sensibility is a prerequisite for the highest ranks of the military and civil service; the government should use those officials to strengthen defence ties with society. They should not marginalise them. Abroad, diplomats should be free to explain UK policy to our allies, not be prevented from doing so. Lastly, openness is a key principle for public life. No. 10's pettifogging tendency for ever greater centralisation and its evident distrust for its own officials goes against the empowered, unshackled and 'emboldened civil service' that Starmer says he wants. Control freakery diminishes the public realm. The first anniversary of Labour's election has found Starmer at the lowest point of his premiership. A shake up is due. But not everything is political; a 'whole of society' approach on defence means just that. It's time that Walker and his colleagues are uncorked.
Daily Mirror
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Major pledge on Britain being 'ready to fight' in face of China threats
Defence Secretary John Healey was challenged over threats to Taiwan as he visited HMS Prince of Wales, which is docked in Australia as part of a rare Indo-Pacific deployment Britain is ready to fight in the face of escalation from China, the Defence Secretary has said. John Healey was challenged over threats to Taiwan as he visited the British aircraft carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, which is docked in Australia as part of a rare Indo-Pacific deployment. Asked about what the UK is doing to support countries like Taiwan amid potential escalation from China, Mr Healey told The Telegraph: 'If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. 'We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.' But the Cabinet minister insisted he would rather see any disputes in the Indo-Pacific resolved 'peacefully' and 'diplomatically', clarifying that he was speaking about preparation to fight in 'general terms'. Mr Healey was joined by Richard Marles, Australia's deputy prime minister, on HMS Prince of Wales, as the ship docked in Darwin to take part in war games with allies, including the US. The British aircraft carrier, which is roughly the size of three football pitches, is on an eight-month deployment, known as Operation Highmast. In April, Keir Starmer met the crew onboard HMS Prince of Wales during an overnight stay ahead of their voyage. The PM said the mission showed the UK's "leadership on global issues and security and defence". "We all know that the world is more uncertain than it felt a few months or years before - we're in a new era," Mr Starmer said at the time. "We are sending a clear message of strength to our adversaries, and a message of unity and purpose to our allies." Tensions in the Indo-pacific region have been increasing for some time, with fears mounting that China will invade Taiwan, a self-governing island. China's leader Xi Jinping has eyed forcibly incorporating Taiwan into the country. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth warned in May of China posing an "imminent" threat to Taiwan during a high-level Asia defence summit. In the UK's Strategic Defence Review, published in June, it said: "China is increasingly leveraging its economic , technological and military capabilities.. This includes: a vast increase in advanced platforms and weapons systems such as space warfare capabilities, an unprecedented diversification and growth of its conventional and nuclear missile forces with missiles that can reach the UK and Europe.' And on the China threat the SDR warns of: 'More types and greater numbers of nuclear weapons than ever before with its arsenal expected to double to 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030.'
Telegraph
5 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Why has the Royal Navy taken over a civilian support ship? The answer won't cheer you up
Could the RN take back the amphibious mission and the minehunting motherships, leaving the RFA to run the tankers and support ships? This seems like a natural division of labour but would need firm leadership to force it through and even then the RN is short of people too. At least that problem is not as severe as it is for the RFA. The recent Strategic Defence Review mentions some of this but offers no detail – especially on money. The Investment Plan, due in the Autumn, will have some serious questions to answer here, as with everything all across Defence. The other even broader question is to what level should the Stirling Castle model of simply putting combat equipment on affordable merchant service hulls be used. Here the answer is divided between traditionalists and realists. The traditionalist view is that a warship should be a purpose-built thoroughbred, sleek, as fast as possible, bristling with weapons and sensors and made to exacting standards in order to be survivable in war. There are others of my acquaintance who would suggest that (for example) three Merlin anti-submarine helicopters on an ex-merchant hull would fight submarines at least as well as a single Merlin on a frigate. They'd suggest that radar drones or helicopters would find enemy surface units or aircraft much further away than a destroyer's radar can, being up in the air with hugely greater line of sight. They'd point out that destroyer weapons are already supplied in containerised forms suitable for bolting on to any hull. These people point out that a dedicated warship's high top speed – typically achieved using expensive gas turbines – is usually irrelevant as the thirsty gassers get through fuel very quickly at speed. A warship cannot actually travel over any serious distance any faster than its accompanying auxiliary tanker. When high speed is called for in combat, aircraft or missiles are what count: a frigate's primary means of attacking submarines is, after all, its helicopter. But I'm a former frigate captain and a specialist in the use of destroyers, and I'd rather have frigates and destroyers. There is a reason frigates, destroyers, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines etc have remained largely unchanged in recent decades – they work. But I would freely admit that an insistence on exquisite, fast, heavily equipped specialist warships has got us to a terrible place in terms of capabilities and numbers. I do wonder how we punch our way out of the navy-wide hole we are currently in when there is no more serious money coming. I do ask how we achieve the mass that is missing and uncrewed advancement that we so obviously need? Before long every platform starts looking like a Stirling Castle -type purchase, or container ships with drones the way the Iranians are doing it, or uncrewed surface weapons and expensive proper warships are consigned to the military history bin. As ever, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, but this is a balance that is hard to strike when financial conditions constantly force you to make decisions because you have to, not because you should. In the meantime, it's a safe bet that the practice of converting unusual ships for RN use is going to increase. So let's use the transfer of Stirling Castle to the Royal Navy as a test bed to become better at it.
Daily Record
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Record
UK military now has new AI digital targeting system similar to Ukraine and Russia
The ASGARD system is designed to dramatically enhance the speed and accuracy of the UK's battlefield strikes - with the UK military now having a system similar to those used by Ukraine and Russia The British Army has revealed cutting-edge AI digital targeting technology comparable to systems deployed by Russia and Ukraine. ASGARD is engineered to drastically enhance both the velocity and precision of the UK's combat operations. The technology underwent trials during recent NATO military exercises, employing artificial intelligence and sophisticated communication networks to identify and engage hostile targets across extended distances. It allows choices that previously required hours to be executed within minutes, representing a substantial enhancement to operational pace. ASGARD was revealed by Defence Secretary John Healey last October, with contracts distributed in January before an official prototype was deployed mere months afterwards, reports the Express. The system underwent successful evaluation during NATO's Exercise Hedgehog, carried out in Estonia across a fortnight in May. In a statement, Maria Eagle, the Defence Procurement Minister, said: "We are learning the lessons from Ukraine so our frontline personnel can strike further and faster and maintain advantage over our adversaries. "ASGARD exemplifies the vision of the Strategic Defence Review, with speed and world-class capability." Describing the system as a "breakthrough", Sir Roland Walker, the Chief of General Staff, added: "ASGARD helps double our lethality and exponentially reduces the time to see, decide, and strike. What took hours, now takes minutes." He also highlighted how the new system brings Britain closer to the high-speed targeting networks employed by the likes of Ukraine and Russia. It forms part of the Army's strategy to establish a 'Digital Targeting Web' across the Armed Forces by 2027 which has already secured backing of over £1billion in funding. Meanwhile, Britain and its people are not safe, a former Nato general secretary has warned, as he told Parliament describing the country as underprepared for war is an "understatement". Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who co-authored the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), said the UK is lacking in ammunition, training, people, logistics, and medical capacity. He told the upper chamber: "Bearing in mind the difficult world that we live in and have to survive in, this is what I firmly believe: we are underinsured, we are underprepared, we are not safe. This country and its people are not safe. "The British people are faced with a world in turmoil, with great power competitions spilling over now into conflict, with constant grey zone attacks on our mainland, and with Russia - often with the co-operation of Iran, China and North Korea - challenging the existing world order. We simply in this country are not safe."
Scotsman
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Former Nato Secretary-General's terrifying warning about state of UK's defences shows why we need to 'wake up'
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Given he was a UK Defence Secretary, Nato Secretary-General and recently co-wrote a Strategic Defence Review for the Westminster government, George Robertson is worth listening to on military matters. And, speaking in a debate on the review in the House of Lords, Lord Robertson stressed repeatedly that 'this country and its people are not safe' because of the state of our Armed Forces. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'When we say in the report [the review] that we are unprepared, it is an understatement,' he warned. 'We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with the mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high-intensity warfare.' If Ukraine is defeated by Vladimir Putin's forces, he is likely to turn his attention to the Baltic states, all Nato members (Picture: Genya Savilov) | AFP via Getty Images No more peace dividend Not that long ago, the risk that this country might be involved in such a conflict was relatively small. The UK was, therefore, able to enjoy a 'peace dividend' that saw the size of our Armed Forces fall to historically low levels, with the money saved used for other public spending priorities. And that was a good thing. However, the world has changed dramatically in three main ways: Vladimir Putin's corruption of Russian democracy and his invasion of Ukraine; the rise of isolationism in US politics, as expressed by Donald Trump's 'America first' slogan; and the increasing military might of China. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Suddenly the UK has found itself facing a possible future in which Russia defeats Ukraine and then turns its attention to the Baltic states, all Nato members; the US, under Trump or a fellow traveller, decides to leave Europe to its own defences; and China invades Taiwan. The problem is few people recognise the potential dangers. Former Conservative defence minister Nicholas Soames said 'unless the public has some idea of the sense of urgency, the only way really to wake people up is to establish either a minister or ministry of civil defence charged with training millions of people how to respond to an attack'.
