KOFAC endorses the points made by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathan Band on 4 June 2009 in support of investing in a strong Royal Navy.

"Britain are a pre-eminently maritime nation whose people rely on the unhindered use of the sea for their security, prosperity and well-being. I know this continues to be the case, but I am concerned that many people in positions of responsibility and influence too often fail to acknowledge or give sufficient weight to this key geo-strategic fact in their thinking, planning and actions.

There are no reductions in the range of threats and challenges facing us. This is an era of deployed operations that necessitates an expeditionary mind set.

Some commentators are already urging a change in the balance of our investment to reflect their predictions of operations in the near term, this is jumping the gun.

Don't short change the future for fear of the present, and I think in the current climate, that advice applies equally to defence planning.

While Afghanistan is rightly our priority, it is not the only show in town.

I have concerns that the present public and media focus on land conflict risks overlooking a more fundmental point about this country's relationship with, and dependence on, the sea.  For those prepared to think in more strategic terms, it follows that our nation's dependence on the sea means that our ability to influence what happens there and in the littoral regions is central to our continued security and prosperity.  The global sea lanes are the arteries along which the economy of this island nation flows. We rely heavily on imported raw materials, goods, food and even energy.  Our national strategic holdings of all these commodities have to be measured against our ability to guarantee the security of those sea lanes. We live in a 'just enough, just in time' econonmy and virtually all of our economic activity, imports or exports, travel by sea. So, the ability of states' navies to protect their national interests is as much about presence and reach, about the very fact of having a Fleet and what it can do every day for you, as it is about combat operations. None of this is lost on other states.

The case for the deterrent remains at least as strong as it was in 1969.

I stressed that it was equally important that we retain sufficient depth and breadth in our other capabilities to deal with conventional threats. We shouldn't overlook those unique attributes of access, sustained presence and reach that can deliver effect elsewhere.

The prospects of this country having to fight a war of national survival in the short to medium term are pretty remote, although it would be reckless to rule it out completely.

We need a navy that is big enough to have a meaningful presence, to deter or defeat attacks and versatile enough to operate across the entire spectrum of possible tasking.

We shouldn't, for example, have a force solely comprising frigates because, while they are effective, versatile workhorses, when it comes to high end operations, they need to be backed up with high end capability.

We have reached a tipping point where the overall numbers of frigates and destroyers are forcing difficult progarmming decisions which fetter the Government's strategic choice.

We must also realise the fact that SSN fleet fragility has reached criticial mass and Astute cannot come a moment too soon.

We need to ensure that the value to the nation and utility to defence offered by these capital ships is properly understood and realised, not just by the maritime community but across Government, defence and by the general public.

The Future Surface Combatant programme is so important to the future of the Royal Navy and must hit the gorund running.

Resource challenges are potentially forcing a choice between investing in current shortfalls at the expense of future capabilities and given the long lead times and complexity of submarine and shipbuilding, I find this worrying. While we may appear to claim a relatively large part of the equipment budget, it should be borne in mind that maritie forces repay initial investment over time very well because they are extraordinarily cost effective once the platform is built. That's partly because our overheads on the biggest cost to defence which is manpower are relatively lower.

The Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability programme aims to ensure future world wide capability. Current delays to this programme, unless they can be addressed, will increasingly have a detrimental effect on our ability to sustain operations.

Looking to the future we must keep pressing for imperatives like energy security, sea lanes of communication, forward deployment, proactive defence diplomacy and maritime capacity building, to be properly understood in the UK's defence security and diplomatic fields. We are in the habit of labelling this problem as sea blindness but is it not the case that even this sea blindness is a symptom rather than the cause? Could it be that this country is losing the ability to think strategically?

We must stay firm on strategic nuclear matters and balance the 'here and now' with an unpredictable future. We must continue to bear down in infrastructure and elimnate waste in order to make support more affordable."

Navy braced for cuts says First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope Saturday, September 19, 2009, 10:00 Western Morning News

MORALE among the Navy is being hit by the fear of future cuts, the UK's top sailor has warned.

The First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope has said in a speech the Senior Service was bracing itself for possible reductions under the forthcoming defence review, and acknowledged there will be "some difficult decisions".

To an audience including defence minister Baroness Taylor, he said that at a time of funding pressures, the fleet needed to be maintained to help protect the nation and its allies. The priority was "to keep the Navy at sea" to uphold the service's morale, training and capability.

Sir Mark also admitted the decision to build the next generation of aircraft carriers could be overturned, which could have serious consequences for Devonport in terms of work and jobs.

Only this week, Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said the number of new nuclear missile- carrying submarines could be cut from four to three, which would also have implications for Plymouth, which refits the current Trident-armed vessels and has multi-million-pound purpose- built submarine maintenance facilities.

It comes amid fears the Navy will bear the brunt of the exercise strategic defence review that is set to see military spending slashed.

After years of fighting in Afghanistan and previously Iraq, there are senior military figures who argue more resources should be switched to the Army, which has borne the brunt of recent operations.

It led top Navy brass to warn of the dangers of "sea blindness" among policy-makers.

It has also emerged that Chancellor Alistair Darling has been holding a series of meetings with his Cabinet colleagues to identify areas where spending can be cut, after Gordon Brown admitted for the first time that reductions would be needed.

Speaking onboard the Navy's flagship HMS Illustrious yesterday, Sir Mark said the Navy was preparing itself for cutbacks.

He said: "Will the Navy have to make sacrifices? There is not as much money in the defence budget as they would wish there to be. Alongside the other two services, we will have to make some difficult decisions."

He added that morale among Navy personnel was being affected by fears over possible future cuts.

"They worry about the future and have a huge interest in the future and are proud to be part of an organisation that is currently doing the business the nation wants them to do and they want to make sure in the future it is the same," said Sir Mark.

Responding to questions, he admitted the decision to build the next generation of aircraft carriers could be overturned.

Although contracts had been signed to build both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, which are due to enter service from 2015, the defence review could cause plans to change.

He called on the Government to ensure the Navy is not stripped of its ships and its capability to help maintain global security.

Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton Linda Gilroy, who sits on the Commons Defence Select committee, backed the First Sea Lord's comments, saying: "If he doesn't do it, who will?

"I think the often-expressed fear there's something of a sea blindness towards the role of the Navy makes it extremely important he and others should speak up in the months ahead."

Tory MP for South West Devon Gary Streeter said: "The Navy is a force in its own right and plays a significant supportive role to the other two forces. It's also of crucial significance to us in the South West. We have got a fight on our hands to make sure wherever the axe falls it doesn't fall on the Navy. It's already been cut too far and too fast."

Labour MP for Plymouth Devonport Alison Seabeck said: "I share his concern about the Navy because of course for Plymouth there's work involved and jobs involved.

"Any cut could have a potentially serious knock-on effect for our city, and we will aim to ensure that doesn't happen."

Baroness Taylor said later that there were no plans to cancel the contract to build both carriers.