The NSS, which has been coordinated and developed by the Cabinet Office undertaking strategic thinking on national security issues in support of the National Security Council, sets out two high-level objectives which will guide our strategic approach overall:
- To ensure a secure and resilient UK by protecting our people, economy, infrastructure, territory and ways of life from all major risks that can affect us directly; and
- To shape a stable world by acting to reduce the likelihood of risks affecting the UK or British interests overseas, and applying our instruments of power and influence to shape the global environment.
The NSS decides our priorities for action, and identifies 15 priority security risks to the UK; the following Tier 1 risks are judged to be our highest priorities for UK national security:
- terrorism
- cyber attack
- major natural hazards and accidents
- international military crisis
Afghanistan will remain our top priority while British troops are deployed there.
In a written ministerial statement to Parliament announcing the publication of the National Security Strategy, the Prime Minister said today:
“The United Kingdom faces a complex array of threats from a myriad of sources. The National Security Strategy describes the strategic context within which these threats arise, and how they may develop in the future.
“It describes Britain’s place in the world as an open, outward-facing nation whose political, economic and cultural authority far exceeds our size. Our national interest requires our continued full and active engagement in world affairs, promoting our security, our prosperity and our values.
“Our objectives are a secure and resilient United Kingdom, and shaping a stable world. In pursuit of these goals, our highest priorities are tackling terrorism, cyber security, international military crises and national disasters such as floods and pandemics.
“We will draw together and use all the instruments of national power to tackle these risks, including the Armed Forces, diplomats, intelligence and development professionals, the police, the private sector and the British people themselves.
“The National Security Strategy, together with the measures in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, will enable us to protect our security and advance our interest in the world.”
interesting that “an international military crisis” is listed as a tier 1 threat, whereas they make a separate tier 2 category specifically fir “major instability, insurgency, or civil war overseas”………….
On first reading, this seems incomplete, inconsistent and incoherent. I can’t help thinking that it has been written in such a way as to justify any of a million different choices rather than leading to very specific priorities. Cyber attack! What does this mean? Challenger 2 will be replaced by the universal deployment Norton Anti-Virus 9 and random password generators? Will civil servants no longer leave their laptops in pubs? I doubt it. God help us!
Seems like a big win for Cyber-defence and GCHQ
also,
“Two carriers on order incapable of operating the aircraft of our closest allies”
That sounds like confirmation of the CATOBAR / F-35C option for PoW to me
Well, a quick scan of the document and the passing reader could be forgiven for thinking, “phew, that’s all a bit scary; no doubt we need an awful lot more men and equipement to sort that little lot out….. where do I vote for this then?”
“ehmmmm…. not so fast responsible citizen. The good news is we’ve thought of all the scary things, so now we’re going to slash everything by 8% but we’ll have 2 very nice aircraft carriers and that’ll make you feel better when you see them on News at Ten.”
I’d like to give that document to the Pentagon and say, “Right lads, what do you reckon you need to cover that little lot then..?” In fact, the response from any other nation would be interesting.
Monty
“Cyber attack! What does this mean? Challenger 2 will be replaced by the universal deployment Norton Anti-Virus 9 and random password generators? Will civil servants no longer leave their laptops in pubs? I doubt it. God help us!”
Very good……. that could go viral!
@ C – “Two carriers on order incapable of operating the aircraft of our closest allies”
that wasn’t mentioned in the document surely – only had time for quick scan of the threats in part 4……..?
I just knew the term cold war would be squeezed in there and as for CVF going CATOBAR, quite possibly the costliest and most idiotic mistake the Government could make, they have clearly drunk the Royal Navy trouser measuring mythology
STVOL means that RN/RAF aircraft can operate from any of our allies flat tops including the USMC’s assault ships and even in austere conditions, a number of other RN vessels
CATOBAR means we will not be able to operate from USMC vessels or use austere locations at sea or ashore, therefore less interoperability
What it does mean is that CVF can become another location for other nations aircraft, in short, the other nations gain and we lose
What a brilliant strategy
has this document said anything about JCA specifically?
I am going to say this without checking, but I am sure that the balance of USMC aircraft aren’t AV8B.
And I am sure there are more CATOBAR carriers than STOVL carriers.
Are our Harriers being used from austere locations in Afghanistan?
And hasn’t using Harrier from “austere locations” at sea been proven to be a flawed concept?
Swings and roundabouts TD, swings and roundabouts.
PoW? I like that. Jack is bound to get than on a tee….
STVOL was proven to be a decisive and irreplaceable capability in Afghanistan, have a read up of early operations from Kandahar and subsequent operations following runway damage. Without Harrier, there would have been no CAS, it’s as simple as that
i have always been pretty agnostic on JCA, with a slight preference to DaveB because it is more likely that two actual carriers will be taken into service, rather than one CTOL and one LPH (because cats-n-traps are expensive).
i’m curious regarding statements on JCA, and whether they derive from the report or not…….?
cheers admin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/years/1985/gallery/cybermen.shtml
“STVOL was proven to be a decisive and irreplaceable capability in Afghanistan, have a read up of early operations from Kandahar and subsequent operations following runway damage. Without Harrier, there would have been no CAS, it’s as simple as that”
I know this, but where are they operating from?
From a dusty field carved out by the RE, oilots with handle bar moustaches sitting outside a pitched tent waiting for somebody to ring-a-bell and shout “Scramble”?
Or a few thousand feet of tarmac, showered-well-fed pilots in air-conditioned port-a-cabins, sitting a good couple hundred meters from a defended perimeter sitting inside a sanitised area defended in depth?
The definition of austere is of course something for interpretation but lets just say without STVOL there would have been no CAS, which to me trumps any other arguments
btw my quote on the carriers comes from the last or second last paragraph of the foreword which appears to have been written by Cam/Clegg themselves?!
TD said “The definition of austere is of course something for interpretation but lets just say without STVOL there would have been no CAS, which to me trumps any other arguments.”
STOVL and Harrier aren’t synonymous. One perhaps should ask if the Air Marshals were so in tune in with the needs of those on the ground they would have been a bit more forceful in defending Jaguar………..
And it was you who mentioned austere………….
(I just hope the next war is in Somalia or Yemen now and not the Sudan……
)
I wrote crap (what’s new?) What I meant to say if Harrier is flying from a long runway it doesn’t matter about its STOVL capability. What you are saying is that it was the only CAS/attack platform we had……….
Will Typhoon get a gun?
Typhoon has had a gun from day one, don’t let the hype fool you!
What I am saying is that STVOL was an essential capability that we toss aside at our peril
Its a good job we are going to have one of these every 5 years now, after all, the situation is so dynamic:
“For the last two hundred years, the dominant force in international affairs has been the nation state. Most wars have been caused by attempts to create or expand such states. In contrast, over the next twenty years, the risks to international stability seem as likely to come from other factors: ethnic and religious conflict; population and environmental pressures; competition for scarce resources; drugs, terrorism and crime…..
Our forces have a range of skills and capabilities which are particularly valuable in this context. Our primary means of tackling these problems are through preventive diplomacy and economic, social and developmental co-operation. However, military force, including its deterrent effect, can have a significant role to play when other forms of conflict prevention have failed….”
Oh… err they were from the 98 vintage / vantage.
Hello,
No S.T.O.V.L.,no C.A.S.?
When did Harriers ever provide anything more than a very small percentage of the 80 or so close air support sorties flown in Afghanistan daily?
Joint Force Harrier averaged about 5 sorties a day over the 5 years it spent in Afghanistan.
A very small proportion of the close air support in theatre.
The carriers in the Arrabian Sea provide 4 or 5 times that number and then there are the other air bases.
I am not aware of any time when Harriers have even provided a majority of close air support in Afghanistan let alone all of it.
GrandLogistics.
I think the Germans got a gun, but didn’t “we” dump it to save costs?
@ GL
I wasn’t saying that Harrier provided all the CAS. I was trying to fathom out what ThinkDefence was saying.
I think Think is suffering from SDSR fatigue.
Hello X,
I was referring to admin’s earlier comments,I should have quoted to avoid confusion.
Hopefully this will clear things up.
admin said:
“STVOL was proven to be a decisive and irreplaceable capability in Afghanistan, have a read up of early operations from Kandahar and subsequent operations following runway damage. Without Harrier, there would have been no CAS, it’s as simple as that”
and:
“The definition of austere is of course something for interpretation but lets just say without STVOL there would have been no CAS, which to me trumps any other arguments”
I know Kandahar was shut to everything but Harriers once when a C17 pilot forgot to lower his undercarriage but Kandahar is not the only source of close air support in Afghanistan.
Even in the early Afghan operations,post invasion,air support was coming in from carrier aircraft,land based bombers and fighters from places like Masirah and Manas.
The United States Marines flew 6 Harriers from Bagram in 2002/3 and averaged less than 4 sorties per day – again a miniority of the close air support available.
I would rather we kept the Harriers in service than the Tornados but I can’t see how vertical landing has ever been essential in Afghanistan.
GrandLogistics.
Hello,
regarding the C17 I think I should have said Bagram.
GrandLogistics.
Admin
But now we have the Apaches to cover Austere, would it not be better to spend some money ensuring Austere wasnt the usual?
You can build a functional, if not exactly long lived, airstrip from the cargo capacity of a C17.
Just have back up runways and the ability to build temporary ones at speed.