Ministry of Defence Press Release, 19 January 2010

Various media outlets have reported on speeches given by First Sea Lord (1SL), Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, today, and Chief of the General Staff (CGS), General Sir David Richards, yesterday, comparing their visions of future defence requirements. Some reports have suggested that the speeches reveal a rift between the Services on the subjects of balance and flexibility of forces, and what threats we are likely to face. The speeches in fact share much common ground, with the two chiefs agreeing on a number of issues from their individual perspectives.

CGS and 1SL agree that the strategic context has changed fundamentally and that the result of the next Strategic Defence Review (SDR) must be to produce a balanced force structure with capabilities that are most relevant to the future. The Armed Forces must continue to be flexible and agile enough to adapt to a variety of threats, including some that cannot be predicted. 

CGS and 1SL are both agreed about the need to develop flexible forces, involving all three Services, that are capable of meeting a variety of threats.

Below are excerpts of the two speeches and display how both CGS and 1SL are agreed on the future of the two Services:

CGS: "This is not, as is often suggested, a matter of where the balance of investment should lie between the three Services. Rather this is about ensuring we achieve a balance, across all three and with allies, between our ability to fight a traditional war of air, maritime and ground kinetic manoeuvre and being able to conduct a far more difficult one amongst, with and for the people."

1SL: "A continued emphasis on further developing joint engagement, by which I mean land, sea and air elements, and operations that involve and maximise the contributions of military forces with other agencies and countries, will be increasingly important in a globalised world."

1SL and CGS both emphasised the need to work with and within international alliances and organisations in order to achieve our aims: 

CGS: "Alliances are the principal means to compensate for our inability to resource military capability that is less needed in the future but cannot be completely discarded; this is how perceived risk in any particular capability area should be mitigated."

ISL: "Our forces should therefore also be able to be deployed globally and engage in long-term reassurance, stabilisation, training and prevention missions. And they must also have the means to work alongside others - international partners, government departments, civilian agencies and the civilian population. Such forces can do good for the taxpayer on a daily basis."

Both CGS and 1SL are arguing that the SDR will be the means by which the future shape and size of UK defence is decided. That this should be a Foreign-Policy-led process, and that once we have agreed what the nation's security interests are, it will then be necessary to agree how meeting those interests can be accomplished. At this point, the required capability will need to be matched to available resources:

CGS: "Spending on future defence capability is invariably about managing risk, not eliminating it. This thinking shapes rightly our strategic posture. It is how we prioritise some equipment over others, some intelligence and technological advances over others, and some force elements over others. Like any insurance, what this needs is an understanding of what must be covered fully and what can be taken at risk on the basis of alliance or likelihood."

1SL: "In conclusion, I believe that the Defence Review needs to consider focusing on UK Armed Forces, whether maritime, air or land, which are able to be configured to deliver the necessary combat power, but have utility to be able to support the protection and promotion of the national interest more widely."

CGS: "Defence must respond to the new strategic, and indeed economic, environment by ensuring much more ruthlessly that our Armed Forces are appropriate and relevant to the context in which they will operate rather than the one they might have expected to fight in in previous eras. Too much emphasis is still placed on what Secretary Gates calls 'exquisite' and hugely expensive equipment."

1SL: "Alongside a greater understanding of the strategic effect of using our forces more widely, we must also recognise that in an uncertain future where we can’t afford everything we might need, we must instead strive for forces that are flexible - and able, between them, to adapt to operate successfully across the entire spectrum of tasks that might be demanded of them."

Additionally, 1SL had this to say this morning during his speech at the Berwin Leighton Paisner Defence Breakfast:

"Much of what General Richards said last night resonates with what I'm saying today. He speaks about a hi-tech future and the need for cyber-defence, I absolutely support that. That is a battleground this nation needs to be ready to be engaged in in the future far more effectively than we are today. He speaks of flexibility, hybrid warfare and this business of high intensity warfare being a mixture of old style force-on-force and hybrid underplaying of activity. Yes, absolutely right.

"He talks about the need for a wider debate - that's why I am here, to stimulate a wider debate and discussion. He advocates a clear understanding within that debate on how much we can afford to put into defence, I absolutely agree. So whilst there is a desire to show a split between us and feed a frenzy of 'the chiefs are again at loggerheads' - we are not. We are trying to pursue a clear, well-articulated debate on what defence means."