Thales welcomes Royal Navy frigate’s sonar upgrade

One of the Royal Navy’s (RN’s) most advanced Type 23 frigates has re-entered operational service, fitted with Thales’s Sonar 2087 system, following a period of inten­sive sea trials.

HMS Sutherland has been declared fit for operational service after trials of its major sonar and defensive systems, and now becomes the sixth Type 23 frigate to be upgraded with the Sonar 2087 system.

In November 2008 the Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced that HMS Sutherland had left Rosyth dockland for the trials after a multi-million pound refit that included major upgrades to its sonar, Sea Wolf missile defence and gun systems.

The MoD has said the installation of Sonar 2087 will improve the frigate’s submarine-hunting ability. This type of frigate can also carry the Merlin helicopter fitted with Thales UK’s FLASH dipping sonar. The combination of 2087 and FLASH makes the Type 23 a formidable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platform.

Sonar 2087 is a towed array system that enables Type 23 frigates to hunt the latest submarines at considerable distances and locate them beyond the range at which they can launch an attack.

The system is a low-frequency active sonar, consisting of both active and passive sonar arrays. The system is manufactured at Thales sites in the UK (Cheadle Heath in Manchester and Templecombe in Somerset) and France (Brest).

Mike Waldron, Group lead for Sonar systems at the MoD’s Defence Equipment & Support facility, says: “Recent operational deployments using Sonar 2087 against actual ‘threat platforms’ has shown this to be a very capable ASW system, giving these platforms a significant capability enhancement.

“HMS Sutherland now enters the in-service reliability phase alongside the other five Sonar 2087-fitted platforms so that the MoD and Thales can fully test and assess the system performance.”

Royal Navy Video........... Love IT!... Smell the Cordite....

BRAVO ZULU to Kate Nesbitt MC You are a STAR

At Last a REAL NAVAL HERO. ......... Well done Kate

Able Seaman Kate Nesbitt was among more than 100 service personnel who were recognised for acts of heroism during 3 Commando Brigade's deployment earlier this year.

The rating was recognised for outstanding gallantry after she went to the assistance of a soldier from 1st Bn The Rifles who had been shot in the neck during a gun battle with the Taliban.

AB Nesbitt, 21, dressed the wound and kept the soldier from losing blood while Taliban bullets and rockets flew overhead during the battle in Marjah district in Helmand, close to the provincial capital Lashkar Gah in March.

“Had she not done so this soldier would definitely have died,” a military spokesman said.

The sailor, who was deployed ashore as part of a 700 strong Royal Navy contingent bolstering the Royal Marines, smiled proudly yesterday as she received recognition for her actions at a ceremony with other troops in Plymouth.

Her citation read that throughout a series of offensive operations her actions were “exemplary”.

“Under fire and under pressure her commitment and courage were inspirational and made the difference between life and death. She performed in the highest traditions of her service.”

Female combat medics have been accompanying front line patrols at least since the Iraq invasion in 2003. Although they carry weapons they do not generally get involved in combat unless they need to defend themselves from immediate danger.

The first woman to receive a Military Cross was Michelle Norris, of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who rescued her vehicle commander while under fire in Iraq in 2006. AB Nesbitt is only the second female recipient of the MC.

Two Royal Marines were awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, an award just below the Victoria Cross, for heroic actions in Helmand.

L/Cpl Bradley Malone “displayed a complete disregard for his own safety” after he ran across open ground to rescue his sergeant during a Taliban ambush. His “fighting prowess and gallantry” turned the tide of the battle.

Mne Steven Nethery ran while unarmed under concentrated fire to retrieve a wounded colleague and then braved open ground a second time to prevent vital equipment falling into enemy hands. “His repeated bravery undoubtedly saved lives,” his citation read.

Another Royal Marine, Sgt Noel Connolly was awarded a Military Cross after saving up to 30 lives by "rugby-tackling" a suicide bomber on a motorcycle.

Other awards included a bar added to Brig Gordon Messenger’s DSO for his outstanding leadership of 3 Cdo Bde which he had to command at the last minute after its commander was injured weeks before it deployed.

Special forces troops, who were not named, received recognition for their courageous but secret work with four Military Crosses.

In total there were 16 MCs for Afghanistan, three DSOs, three Queens Gallantry Medals and 43 Mentioned in Dispatches.

Navy hit by £1bn rise in carrier plan

Plans to build new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy are at risk because costs have soared by £1billion, it was revealed last night.

A leaked memo showed builders of the aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, known as QE Class carriers, were worried.

It said: "The MoD will publish its annual report and accounts in July; these will show £1billion of QE Class cost growth. This is a very real fight for the programme's survival."

The memo, written for the chief executives of companies participating in the project, was leaked to the BBC.

But sources say there is little prospect of the project being dropped. The MoD said: "We took the decision to delay the two future aircraft carriers in December 2008."

Sea Lord says Navy needs more cash

BRITAIN’S most senior naval officer has accused ministers of “sea blindness” and revealed he has had to point out his overstretched ships can’t be in more than one place at one time.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, told the Daily Telegraph there was a pressing need to hold a debate on the country’s defence priorities.

He revealed he has even had to remind ministers – keen to set more missions for the Royal Navy while simultaneously culling the fleet – a ship can’t be in two places at once.

Sir Jonathon, who is stepping down after three-and-a-half years, also warned that Britain was “losing the ability to think strategically”.

“I think Government could continue to learn,” he said. “Until recently there’s been sea blindness. Is it because people get into politics for domestic rather than international reasons?”

In a warning to politicians looking to make defence cuts, he said: “You don’t need to be an economist to realise major countries face a challenging outlook, but just because things are tough, don’t stop insuring your house. We have to have a strategic debate.

"Looking round the world, I don’t see it calming down; I don’t see any argument for Britain doing less.

“There is bound to be a limit on ship building, that’s fine. All I’m saying is, with the size of fleet, I can’t go any more places. If anyone wants me to go somewhere I say ‘fine, I’m very happy to go there, but where don’t you want me to go?’”

He confirmed this was “an actual discussion” he’d had with ministers.

“The Gulf is clearly a priority, and will remain so with a bi-lateral agreement with Iraq,” he said.

“In the Mediterranean we put a ship in whenever we can afford to. In the Caribbean and northern Atlantic we have dependent territories and fight the drug trade.

“We used to patrol that all year, now less than half the year with a full warship. Down south we have a deterrence mission [for the Falklands], and en route try to service our engagement with South American and West African friends.

“Turn the clock forward 20 years and we will be worrying about Asia and the West Pacific. In the past six months we’ve conducted exercises with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, India, Bangladesh, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. If you cut the naval cake too far you just say ‘OK, we won’t go to the Far East’. Strategically, that would be incredibly stupid.”

The First Sea Lord has already seen his order of 12 Type 45 Destroyers halved.

In a clear swipe at ministers, he ridiculed the view that says “my God, a Type 45 is very expensive”. He said: “If you want to protect a task group, that’s what you need. And then, it’s jolly cheap, and you’re jolly glad you have it.”

He believes Britain’s island status must place the sea at the heart of its thinking. Piracy, terrorism, drugs and people trafficking, protecting energy and trade routes all point to an increased naval role.

“People have no idea that by 2012 their lights will be staying on because of liquid gas arriving in Milford Haven daily,” he said. “There is a world out there with a huge maritime element. I mean, we call it Earth; we should call it The Sea.”

According to the Telegraph interview, the First Sea Lord is frustrated by the Government’s drastic cuts to the fleet which now has less than a quarter of the 413 warships it enjoyed in 1964.

Investment was needed even to maintain a diminished fleet, he said.

“We are no longer the second largest navy, but we are the only navy with that global capability and frankly, the only professional partner of note to the Americans.”

Sir Jonathon also admitted sailors were “frustrated” and “disappointed” at the failure to recognise the Navy’s huge contribution to recent conflicts.

Last winter up to 40 per cent of our forces in Afghanistan were Navy, but because Royal Marines are described as “troops” and helicopter pilots are assumed to be RAF, the two other services are given the credit.

10 reasons why the state of the Royal Navy should matter to YOU

1. Protecting ships that carry the food you eat, the stuff you buy and the fuel you need.
Most of the oil used by the UK arrives by sea. Global maritime trade relies on the free and lawful use of the sea. The UK is an island nation and most of the food and goods you buy in the shops has arrived from overseas on a ship. The same goes for the oil that powers your car (and just about every kind of transport in the country) has arrived in vast, vulnerable oil tankers. Even a slight disruption to this flow of oil would case massive problems for the UK, just remember the serious effects of the short-lived fuel protest of 2000. A large tanker, the Sirius Star carrying $100 million worth of crude oil was seized by pirates in 2008 demonstrating how vulnerable they are and how it could impact world markets. Without fuel, food distribution would quickly grind to a halt, rationing would be introduced and we would have to rely on meagre locally grown supplies. By 2011, 50% of the gas that you heat your house and cook with will arrive by sea from abroad (aboard the even more vulnerable 'floating bombs' that are Liquid Natural Gas carriers). 92% of UK trade by volume (586 million tonnes) is moved by sea. The health of the already fragile UK economy depends on this. Your job may well depend directly or indirectly on the free flow of imports or exports by sea. Sea transport is a significant part of the economy and is the UK's 3rd largest service sector. These ships are obviously vulnerable to attack by a foreign country, attack by terrorists and, as demonstrated by recent events, attack by pirates. The only effective way to protect merchant shipping is with naval forces. During 2 World wars in the 20th Century Britain came close to starvation because her merchant shipping was being sunk by submarines. Today there are fewer merchant ships but they're generally much larger and in open conflict would make fat and easy targets for today's sophisticated submarines. Just a few well-handled submarines could wreak havoc on world trade. 95% of global trade passes through just 9 narrow 'choke points' (such as the Straits of Hormuz ) where it is especially easy for a belligerent nation or even a terrorist group to attack shipping.
The RN is particularly short of escort vessels needed to protect merchant shipping from submarine, air or missile attacks. The Tory government of the 1980s was committed to maintaining 50 frigates and destroyers (escorts). The current labour government has slashed the number of theses vessels to 21 and lack of orders means it will fall even further in the near future. (As an interesting comparison Japan, an island nation of similar size to the UK, although more populous and richer, but with far fewer global commitments operates around 50 escorts.)
2. Operating the nuclear deterrent that helps keeps the peace. Whatever you think about nuclear weapons, it is hard to disagree with the fact that the threat of their use has prevented world war for over 60 years. The Royal Navy has quietly helped maintain this deterrent which ultimately helped win the Cold War. While unstable nations around the world continue to acquire nuclear weapons it would seem wise that Britain retains this ability. It would be great if the world was entirely rid of these horror weapons but that's really an unlikely utopian fantasy. They are expensive to build and maintain but not as expensive as a world war. It does not bear thinking about how the effects of nuclear war would impact on the lives of every individual in almost every part of the world.
The UK government is committed to replacing the current generation of nuclear-armed submarines although work needs to start urgently if there is not going to be a gap in capability. It is also pondering whether it can cut corners and build just 3 submarines instead of 4 that are needed to safely guarantee one on patrol at any one time. The recent collision by one of the deterrent submarines and a French submarine demonstrates the need for some spare capacity in the event the unexpected. In addition to the actual RN submarines that carry these weapons, there is a need for trained and experienced personnel to man them and other submarines and ships to protect them at times. The RN is already short of these resources.
3. Helping in the fight against terrorism. The causes of terrorism and what the reponses to it should be are complex and controversial. However what is not in doubt is that it is an increasing threat to the world and in most cases terrorists need to be confronted by force. Britain is second only to the US on the list of countries that insane Islamic militants want to target with indiscriminate murder and mayhem. Everyday, largely out of sight and out of the public mind, the RN is part of the complex array of forces trying to combat terrorism. Whether contributing personnel, and aircraft to Afghanistan, or conducting maritime search of suspect vessels, the RN is helping police the seas and disrupt terrorism. For more urgent action RN submarines carry very accurate long-range Tomahawk missiles which have been used in the past to target terrorist training camps.
As with protecting trade, the RN simply does not have the number of ships needed to patrol the large areas used by terrorist traffic.
4. Maintaining British influence in the world. The ships of the RN are a key component in projecting Britain's influence. (whether this is for good or bad is of course dependent on the integrity of the incumbent government). Visiting RN vessels are a great way to promote relationships with friendly and neutral nations around the world. The size and ability of the RN (and other UK forces) is a significant factor in how much influence we have over global politics and in particular the actions of the United States. The presence of a warship can send a powerful message of deterrence without a shot being fired. The concept of a 'fleet in being' is a cornerstone in the defence of the UK and its interests. The knowledge that we possess a fleet and are able to use it can make potential aggressors think twice. For example, in could be argued that cuts in the RN fleet lead directly to the Falklands conflict. Argentina interpreted the weakening of the navy as a lack of resolve by the UK to protect its overseas assets.The tangible benefits for you as a UK citizens of this influence is both economic; helping UK business, and moral; UK values and UK people receive greater respect and attention abroad. The United Kingdom has 13 Overseas Territories and, in the last 15 years the RN has provided direct support to 6 of them. There are also 5.5 million Britons living overseas. The RN is the most important tool the UK possesses when diplomatic avenues are either exhausted or need backing with force.
5. Supplying humanitarian aid and helping with disaster relief around the world.The RN not only trains for war but for humanitarian missions. Every year RN warships are involved in providing aid, comfort and relief of nations that have suffered natural disasters. In the Caribbean where islands are regularly devastated by hurricanes RN vessels have often been the first on the scene providing help to the local authorities. In the aftermath of the devastating tsunami in 2004, RN vessels went to the relief of Sri Lanka. There have been many other examples going back decades where trained men, well equipped ships and the 'can-do' attitude of the RN has been a huge help to struggling communities across the globe. On a smaller scale it is common practice for RN warships visiting foreign ports to send small teams to help local charities in various practical ways such a repairing an orphanage or decorating a school. In addition ship's companies regularly raise considerable sums of money to donate to charitable organisations. In these kind of efforts the RN is a great ambassador for the UK and a force for good in the world.
6. Protecting UK waters and the fish stocks.
Fishing remains an important industry, particularly in the more remote parts of the UK.Fish are an important part of our diet and the fishing industry is a mainstay of many small ports around UK. Protecting fish stocks from over-fishing, preventing plunder by foreign vessels and enforcing fish quotas and regulations is actually the oldest task performed by the RN. In addition to fishery protection, supporting the Coastguard, Customs and Police in the fight against terrorism crime, drug smuggling, illegal immigration are occasional additional roles for RN vessels on your doorstep.
With 10,500 miles of coastline and 600 ports one of the UK's greatest natural resources is the sea. The current government has allowed the RN's fishery protection fleet to fall to a laughable 3 vessels dedicated to patrolling UK waters.
7. Disrupting the flow of illegal drugs.The RN regularly patrols in the Caribbean region and has made seizures of large amounts drugs grown in South America intended for Europe. The RN has also sized drugs from suspect vessels across the worlds oceans. Disrupting the trade in narcotics that are a major cause of crime, mental health problems and misery on the streets near you is very worthwhile. Money from the sale of drugs is also a source of funds for terrorism and criminal empires. As the drug smugglers become more sophisticated, even building crude submarines to transport drugs, then a global response is needed and only the RN can contribute to this in partnership with local civilian agencies.
8. Carrying out search and rescue missions.
RN aircraft are on standby to perform rescue missions around the UK 24 hours a day.Many mariners, climbers and holidaymakers owe their lives to the Royal Navy. RN and RAF helicopters provide search, rescue and urgent transport to those in danger or injured, usually at sea or on around the coastline of the UK. Many RN aircrew have received bravery awards for risking their lives to save others in hazardous conditions. In addition, RN ships and aircraft regularly go to aid of sailors in danger across the oceans whenever they are in a position to offer assistance.
As a 'cost saving measure' the government plans to privatise search and rescue cover from 2012 and replace experienced RN and RAF crews with private contractors.
9. Supporting manufacturing, industry, research and science.Designing, building and maintaining the vessels and equipment needed by the RN employs thousands of people in the UK and helps maintain cutting edge industrial skills which benefit the economy as a whole. Manufacturing is a key part of a good economy and we can't just rely on the service sector. Although it is hard to argue the taxpayer has received good value for money recently as so many projects have been mis-managed and gone over-budget, never the less, these skills and capabilities are important to keep as no one knows when the UK may need to expand it's forces to meet future threats.
Through a lack of steady placing of equipment orders, this government is allowing much of the industrial infrastructure that supports the RN to wither and this valuable skills base, built up over decades is hard to re-build in a hurry, if at all. While generally trying to stimulate the troubled economy by public spending, no extra money has been given to defence projects.
10. Training and employing people.The RN has approximately 35,000 people and it provides secure employment for them and many others indirectly supporting them. RN personnel are trained to a high standard and as their lives may depend on each other, develop an ethos of loyalty, discipline and teamwork which is often lacking in civilian life. When they leave the service they are attractive prospects to many employers and ex-forces personnel and generally a valuable labour resource for the economy. The RN teaches leadership, resourcefulness and teamwork, together with a certain under-statement and a 'can-do' attitude. The occasional mis-deeds of sailors get plenty of media coverage and obviously not all ex-RN personnel are paragons of virtue but in general the RN produces rounded individuals who contribute to society.
Pressure on the RN to do too much with too few people means the average sailor is over-worked and not getting enough time in shore jobs. Regularly breaking their own 'harmony' guidelines, the government's lack of investment in the service is leading to a vicious circle as experienced people resign, tired of too much time away from home serving on under-manned ships.

Hamas, The MCB and the Royal Navy

Interesting little row bubbling away under the radar here in London...

The Government has frozen relations with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) after its deputy leader Daud Abdullah signed a declaration which some people have taken to support the bombing of Royal Navy ships if they tried to prevent Hamas being re-armed from the sea.

Mr Abdullah, whose quango receives tax payers money, signed the 'Istanbul Declaration' a Hamas sponsored document which includes the following;

'The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways'

The Government sought clarification. Mr Abdullah wrote to the Guardian, and the MCB issued a statement, neither of which answered the central question, did Mr Abdullah advocate attacks on British warships? If so, did
the MCB support this?

The irony is that this row comes in the same week the Government launched a new programme to counter radicalisation among Britain's Muslim communities. Umbrella groups such as the MCB are supposed to play a positive role.

Into my mail box pops the following written by Denis MacShane MP, a former Foreign Office minister who knows all the players.

"I have been following the row over the MCB and the question of attacking Royal Navy vessels. Having read the Istanbul Declaration there is no doubt in my mind that it contains an appeal to attack Royal Navy vessels patrolling in the Mediterranean to interdict the supply of weapons to terrorists. I do not see how nay Government can stand by idly when its service men and women are threatened by appeals to attack them supported by a fellow citizen.Below is a letter to the Guardian which sets out my views for your interest."

To The Editor The Guardian 27 March 2009
Dear Sir,
Surely Mr Abdullah of the Muslim Council of Britain and his supporters protest too much. (Letters 27 March) The declaration he signed says the signatories consider "the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways." Leaving to one side the concept of "Muslim waters" and which "Nation" is having its sovereignty violated the declaration Mr Abdullah signed says the naval forces mandated by the UN and EU, including the Royal Navy must be "fought by all means and ways". We have seen Islamist Jihadi attacks on naval vessels and sailors killed. My constituents who serve in the Royal Navy should not have to face calls for attacks on their ships by British citizens. Mr Abdullah can clear up the matter by withdrawing his signature from the Istanbul Declaration.
Yours sincerely,
Rt Hon Denis MacShane MP

Mr MacShane was a junior minister around the time the Government first began to lose faith in the MCB. It was during the Ken Bigley affair and efforts to get them to appeal for clemency for the Baghdad hostage were 'difficult'. The people handing out the cheques to them were then confused when they received reports
that some MCB members were saying one thing to them and the media, and different things to Muslim audiences. Now it seems to be make or break time.

Royal Navy Destroyers Delayed by Weapons Hitches, Crew Shortage

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Britain’s new Type 45 warships, built by BAE Systems Plc and VT Group Plc, may not be ready to join the Royal Navy until next year because of hitches with weaponry and a lack of sailors trained to crew the vessels.

HMS Daring, the first of six destroyers, may miss its scheduled service entry in December, Britain’s National Audit Office said in a report today. The ship is already three years late after cost overruns prompted a review of the budget.

While the Ministry of Defence always planned to arm the fleet in stages, there are potential problems with the integration of the Sea Viper anti-air missile system, the report said. The main role of the new destroyers is to defend Royal Navy ships against enemy aircraft and missiles. All six vessels had been due to enter service by 2013.

“The fleet of Type 45s will not have their full capability until the middle of the next decade, when other important pieces of kit are fitted,” Edward Leigh, chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, said in a letter accompanying the report. “In the meantime, the Navy will be left struggling to keep in service the existing Type 42 destroyers that were designed and built for the Cold War.”

The MoD said in a statement that key milestones on the project, including sea trials, were actually met ahead of schedule and that four of the ships are now in the water.

Sea Viper has been tested on firing ranges from a barge off the southern coast of France, though not on the Daring itself. The system won’t be operational on the destroyer until 2011. Other equipment yet to be installed includes the Skynet 5 and Bowman communications systems.

Naval Links

Another delayed feature, known as co-operative engagement capability, is designed to link the combat systems and sensors of Royal Navy destroyers with ships of allied navies, especially the U.S. The technology is still under development and won’t be installed until 2014.

The Type 45 program has encountered a series of setbacks and cost overruns, with the price tag jumping to 6.5 billion pounds ($9 billion) from 5 billion pounds.

The vessels are being developed by the BVT Surface Fleet Ltd. venture, formed last July by BAE, Europe’s biggest defense contractor, and VT, which plans to exit shipbuilding and sell its 45 percent stake to its larger partner. The deal, approved by the defense ministry, will raise a minimum of 380 million pounds for VT and will be completed by July 1.

Biggest Royal Navy Task Force Sets Sail

HMS Bulwark, which is spearheading the biggest Royal Navy Task Force to deploy to the Far East in more than a decade, set sail from Plymouth today, Wednesday 18 February 2009.

The Taurus deployment has been 18 months in the planning. It aims to maintain the Royal Navy's fighting capability as well as develop the UK's capacity to operate with key partners and allies from NATO countries and other nations to enhance interoperability.

It will also demonstrate the UK's commitment to the stability and security of the Mediterranean, Middle East and South East Asia.

In exercising its ability to deploy globally, the Task Force will conduct a wide range of activities, including maritime security operations, and exercising amphibious and anti-submarine warfare.

The Task Force comprises 12 ships, including a US Navy destroyer and a French Navy frigate, two nuclear-powered submarines, Royal Marines, the Fleet Diving Unit, elements of 820 and 857 Naval Air Squadrons from RNAS Culdrose, 847 Naval Air Squadron and Commando Helicopter Force Sea Kings based in Yeovil and Support Helicopter Force Chinooks from 18 Squadron, RAF Odiham.

It will be joined by ships, troops and aircraft from other nations as it transits towards South East Asia.

At its height, 3,300 personnel will take part in the 20,400 mile (32,831km) round-trip deployment, interacting, training and building relations with 17 nations.

Spearheading the deployment from his Command Ship HMS Bulwark, Royal Navy Commodore Peter Hudson, Commander UK Amphibious Task Group, said:

"Taurus is a great opportunity for the Royal Navy to demonstrate and practise a wide range of skills, specifically anti-submarine and amphibious warfare. Everybody involved is looking forward to this deployment, which has real opportunities for all. Deploying a maritime force across the globe for prolonged periods defines a premier Navy's capability. It is what we do and we do it well. It is important for UK defence that we can take such a commitment in our stride."

The Taurus deployment will be split into two phases.

Phase One will involve amphibious training with nations in the Mediterranean, culminating in a series of amphibious landings in Turkey as part of Exercise Egemen - a joint and combined exercise.

Phase Two will see part of the Task Group deploy through the Suez Canal, culminating in a multi-national training package in the primary jungles of Brunei. Riverine training will also be conducted with the Bangladeshi Navy, the first such interaction in more than a decade.

The UK-mandated deployment will remain available for a range of potential missions as required, such as humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

Speaking as the Task Force prepares to deploy, Minister of State for the Armed Forces Bob Ainsworth said: "In addition to the Royal Navy's contribution to current operations, exercising its open ocean and amphibious capability is vital to demonstrating its global reach and maintaining its capacity to deliver maritime security. This deployment illustrates the Navy's versatility. It is a world class service and deploying this task group will hone its warfighting skills."

The Task Force is expected to return in August 2009.

The ships involved in the Taurus deployment are:

- Landing Platform Dock HMS Bulwark*
- Landing Platform Helicopter HMS Ocean*
- Type 23 frigate HMS Argyll
- Type 23 frigate HMS Somerset*
- United States Navy Guided Missile Destroyer USS Mitscher*
- French Navy Georges Leygues-class frigate FS Dupleix
- RFA Mounts Bay
- RFA Lyme Bay
- RFA Wave Ruler*
- RFA Fort Austin
- Two Trafalgar Class submarines

* denotes units involved in Phase Two

Engagement/Exercises will be conducted with countries including: Malta, Gibraltar, Spain, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei.

Royal Navy helps to train Iraq’s new sailors

Since 2003 a largely unsung and unnoticed Royal Navy team has led the rebuilding of the Iraqi Navy, all of whose ships and small craft were destroyed or disabled during the military, naval and air actions that accompanied the US-led occupation of the country in 2003.

Within the next few weeks 32 Iraqi sailors will move to La Spezia in Italy to pick up the first of four 390-tonne Saetta MkIV patrol vessels built by Fincantieri. After training they will sail her 6,000 miles — three times her normal range — to the base at Umm Qasr at the top of the Arabian Gulf. This is a giant leap for an Iraqi naval service that has existed for barely five years and has only operated small craft in home waters. The present Iraqi Navy has never before left the Gulf.

As the British officers commanding the naval transition team are all too clearly aware, the Royal Navy’s people are in the country as guests, and require their trainees’ consent to be effective. An early decision was made that the Iraqi Navy should be a secular organisation and this is how it remains — Shias work alongside Sunnis with few problems. Family is crucial and religion plays a central part in their lives. British instructors are full of praise for the courage of the people they train, in an environment where even to be clean-shaven carries a risk.

What is the purpose of the Iraqi Navy? It must police and defend Iraq’s coast and territorial rights where the waterway border is in dispute and navigational hazards are considerable. Generating 90 per cent of Iraqi income, the two offshore oil platforms and the Khawr al-Amaya and al-Basra oil terminals must be protected. Iraqi sailors and marines must deter aggression, smuggling and other illegal activities.

The Royal Marines have been teaching boarding in what are known as “compliant” and (euphemistically) “non-compliant” scenarios. The US Coastguard trains Iraqi personnel in anti-narcotic operations. Huge progress with shoreside infrastructure has been made under American guidance.

All the Royal Navy training staff are keenly aware of the vital necessity for getting out on the water right at the beginning of training and learning the practice of seamanship (as happens at Dartmouth and most other naval academies).

Right from the start the philosophy has been: “Put them in a boat for four days and drive around, one has a fighting chance of teaching the theory on day five. Start in the classroom — and there’s no chance.” The “small boat mentor” was a young leading seaman, who taught shiphandling and weapons skills. His humour and language were as salty as one would expect from a sailor who has a practical message to get across — and he was greatly liked by his charges.

Delivering today and building for tomorrow is not easy in Iraq. Given the area’s recent history and the devastation that has been visited on it, it is astonishing that anything can be made to work. Administration can be dysfunctional; the prevailing “Insh’allah” (“God willing”) mindset militates against forward planning and systematic engineering maintenance; budget management and logistic support can be difficult.

But leadership is being learnt. The present CO of the naval transition team, Captain Phil Warwick, is broadening trainees’ experience and raising their ambitions through voyages in coalition warships and participation in helicopter patrols. “For the first time, the Iraqi personnel are outgrowing their current equipment,” he reports.

The new vessels are a modification of the Dicotti class patrol boats already in service with the Italian Guardia Costiera and the Maltese Maritime Squadron. With their offshore patrol capability (they have a range of 2,100 nautical miles at 16 kts) and their complement of four officers and 34 crew, they will add a completely new dimension to the Iraqi naval experience.

Of Jointness and Turf Wars

One of the most significant trends as regards the organisation, the formulation of operational doctrines, and the equipment of modern armed forces is without doubt the extraordinary emphasis being placed on jointness. The Services are increasingly expected to be “colour blind” as regards their own uniforms, and to plan and act as the “brothers in arms” they ought to be. In a broader context, military operations shall be designed and carried out with the flexible and coherent use of all available resources and assets, irrespective of who owns what.

Jointness does indeed makes eminent sense and guarantees the best results for a given investment in defence. This remains true, even if on occasions politicians tend to be carried away, and force upon the military joint procurement programmes, which nearly invariably result in either “jack of all trades, master on none” solutions, or/and in the very expensive development of Service-specific variants and versions – the F-35 JSF being but the most recent such case.

But there unfortunately also are cases, whereby jointness actually provides but the convenient fig leaf for truly ferocious turf wars, with the Services at each other’s throat in a merciless fight for the control of key operational assets and thus a larger slice of the defence budget pie.

Something along these lines appears to be underway in the UK. The recent announcement by the Defence Secretary, John Hutton to the effect that the Carrier Vessel Future (CVF) programme (now also known as the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers) for the construction of two large STOVL carriers will be delayed “by a year of two” (ostensibly in order to implement some short-term savings), actually conceals a much more serious threat (see: http://www.defpro.com/news/details/4405/). There are reasons to fear that the Royal Navy, after having deliberately relinquished operational control over its own Fleet Air Arm in order to protect the carrier programme, will end up losing both.

In order to properly understand what is going on, and why, one has to look back several decades. Back in the 60s of the past century, the Royal Navy formulated an ambitious programme for the construction of a large CTOL aircraft carrier, HMS “Furious” (CVA-01) that was to start replacing the ships of WW2 vintage then in service. The Royal Air Force, however, saw it fit to launch an all-out campaign against the Navy’s programme, involving not only Whitehall circles but also Treasury and the public opinion. Aircraft carriers are utterly useless, maintained the light blue uniforms; our own fighter aircraft, using bases in the Commonwealth countries, are perfectly able to ensure protection to warships and merchant vessels alike anywhere in the world (and in order to demonstrate this point, the RAF did famously produce a map, where Australia had conveniently been moved several hundred miles westward). The money to be saved by cancelling the useless carrier should rather be reassigned to the programme for the new TRS.2 strike bomber for the RAF, which is what the nation really needs.

The RAF did win its precious little turf war, and in 1966 the British government cancelled the “Furious”. But this was the mother of all Pyrrhic victories, because soon afterwards the government threw the TRS.2, too into the dustbin.

The whole affair did teach the Services a bitter lesson or two about the risks inherent with fratricide battles. But it would appear that it did little to change the RAF’s deeply-rooted perception to the effect that, to say it with Hermann Göring’s immortal worlds, “Alles was fliegt, gehört mir” – everything that flies, it belongs to me”.

In view of the operational requirements of the Gulf War, the Royal Navy did eventually build the three small STOVL carriers of the “Invincible” class. In a truly astounding example of “political correctness”, these ships could not even be called “carriers”, and the Newspeak-like definition of “through-deck cruisers” was invented for them. The “Invincibles” had a main role of ASW operations in the UK-Iceland Gap and the North Atlantic, using their shipboard helicopters; however they also carried a small number of Sea Harrier STOVL aircraft to provide a certain degree of air defence against the expected attacks by the long-range anti-shipping bombers of the redoubtable Soviet Naval Aviation.

But then the Falklands War erupted. Had the Argentine Junta waited for a few extra months, leaving enough time for Ms. Thatcher to complete her plans to sell HMS “Hermes” to India and HMS “Invincible” to Australia, and to scrap the two “Invincibles” then under construction, the islands would today be called Malvinas. It was only thanks to the few Sea Harriers onboard the two carriers that the landing operation and the subsequent reoccupation became possible at all. In stark contrast, all the RAF could contribute to the operation was a single bombing raid by a single bomber – a mission with a modest psychological impact, but no tactical or strategic significance whatsoever. As a result, the Air Force was completely cut off the prestige and the halo of glory that welcomed the return of the victorious fleet. That was arguably a very bitter pill to swallow.

In a more serious context, the Falklands War did provide an extremely clear demonstration of the significance and importance of naval shipboard aviation as a superb tool for power projection, whenever and wherever this might be necessary and totally independent from the availability of own or friendly bases conveniently located in the region.

With the end of the Cold War, and the emergence of new operational scenarios that put an emphasis on power projection missions (variously camouflaged as “peace support”, “humanitarian intervention”, “democracy export” and the like), is was thus completely logical for the RN to resurrect its half a century-old plans for a new class of large attack carriers. In view of the “Furious” experience, however, the Navy apparently decided to seek, as its very first move some form of tacit understanding and a gentlemen’s agreement with the RAF, that would prevent yet another disastrous turf war.

The “Strategic Defence Review” document, unveiled in 1998 contained amongst other things a decision to merge the Fleet Air Arm’s Sea Harrier squadrons with the RAF’s Harrier units, giving birth to the Joint Force Harrier under Air Force’s operational control. The merger was officially described as being intended to “contain costs” and “simplify logistics”, but there is little doubt that it did in fact underline an “I’ll scratch your back and you’ll scratch mine” pact. The RN graciously ceded operational control of shipboard fixed-wing aviation, and in exchange the RAF would not raise any protest against the new carrier programme – and for reason, as the carriers would effectively become floating bases for the Air Force’s aircraft.

Needless to say, this was a compromise and as such far from representing the best solution in operational terms or/and the most efficient return for a given investment in taxpayer’s money. In fact, the whole idea was strictly dependent of the JFH scheme being maintained for the next generation, whereby both the RAF and the RN would acquire the very same aircraft – i.e. the F-35B STOVL version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). This “jointness” shall be maintained, even though the RAF, after the end of the Cold War no longer has any logical requirement for a STOVL combat aircraft, and even though the size of the planned CVFs would easily enable them to operate the vastly more capable, and cheaper to boot F-35C (the same CTOL version as intended for the US Navy carriers). “Jointness” in this case means for the British Services being effectively forced to “select” a less performing yet more expensive aircraft.

But despite these inherent limitations and wastage, the above compromise did nonetheless represent an acceptable solution for the nation as a whole, and in any case was to be preferred to yet another fratricide war. The Navy would get its long-cherished attack carriers, the Air Force would automatically have a key air power role in any future operation, and the UK would receive a very efficient power projection tool up to contemporary requirements.

They all lived happily together thereafter, then - or so it seemed. Because there are strong indications that the RAF is not happy, and wants more. To put it simply, it wants all.

The original agreement for the creation of the Joint Force Harrier called for a RN admiral to be assigned a position within the RAF’s leadership. Less than two years later, and “internal reorganisation” eliminated that position – which the Navy, fearful of any disagreement that might come to undermine the carrier pact, accepted without a whisper. The next move has seen the RAF’s decision to withdraw prematurely, and without any real necessity the air defence Harrier FRS.2s that the Fleet Air Arm had contributed to the Joint Force Harrier, and to reorganise the Force to operate but the RAF’s GR.7/9 ground attack versions. This effectively ensures that at least until the future arrival of the JSFs, a Falklands-style operation could never be repeated. This major blow, too, the Royal Navy accepted in its desperate desire to protect the carrier programme at all cost.

Combat operations over the past couple of years have shown both the undeniable advantages and superb flexibility inherent with the jointness concept, and the subtle but potentially deadly risks this concept conceals. On repeated occasions, most not to say all combat-ready aircraft in the JFH were deployed for land-based mission in Afghanistan – thus leaving the two surviving “Invincibles” with no aircraft onboard, and forcing the Navy into the highly embarrassing position of having to ask the Italian Navy, the Spanish Navy or the Marines for the temporary assignment of a few of their respective Harriers so as to allow the carriers to take part in major NATO exercises. In a sense, this is jointness in full action; given that there is no air threat against the fleet, it is certainly logical and advantageous to concentrate all available combat aircraft where they are really needed. On the other hand, however, in different conflict scenarios the choices would not be that self-evident, and the fundamental question as to who shall be empowered to implement these choices accepts no easy answer.

But all of this might soon become meaningless. If persistent rumours are to be believed, the RAF intends to leverage two factors – the global financial crisis, that is already focussing the beancounters’ attention onto the need to “implement savings”; and the presence of an Air Force officer, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup as Chief of Defence Staff,- to close in for the kill.

Observers expect ACM Sir Jock Stirrup and the Chief of Air Staff, ACM Glenn Torpy to soon table a proposal for “substantial savings” to be achieved through the disbandment of Joint Force Harrier and the anticipated withdrawal of all its aircraft within the next five years, i.e. well before the planned arrival of the first JSFs. Now such would apparently be a truly extraordinary sacrifice by the Service to the benefit of the nation’s finances, the more so in that it would leave the RAF temporarily with no ground attack capabilities (the Jaguars have all since been withdrawn, mostly in order to create an urgent requirement for the F-35 JSF). In reality, however, the move seems to conceal a number of very clever goals, to bring the six decades-long inter-service war to a final victorious conclusion.

To start with, the disbandment of the JFH would free the RAF from the Procrustes’ bed of the senseless “requirement” for the F-35B, and would enable the Air Force to reformulate its procurement programme around the much more logical solution of the F-35A (incidentally, at substantially lower unit costs – Treasury will be absolutely de-light-ed). Further, when in two years’ time a final decision would need to be taken as regards the carrier programme, the Navy will be forced to put the bill for the re-establishment of a Fleet Air Arm and the procurement of the relevant aircraft on top of the already substantial price tag for the ships themselves. It is virtually certain that costs will sky-rocket to absolutely prohibitive levels, thus leading to the whole programme being folded down. And, I would bet my skirt that suggestions will be heard for these “savings” being redirected towards financing Tranche 3 of the Eurofighter programme.

It is to be stated quite clearly that such a „victory” for the RAF would actually translate into a very grave loss for the nation. The UK would lose any autonomous capability for even modest power projection or simply military presence missions in areas, where the US is not involved and there is no friendly local state to make immediately available a modern air base with all its relevant installations. Such a capability was at hand, but it will be sacrificed on the altar of parochial Service interests.

Now if someone could please dismiss all the above as baloney, and convincingly show that I’ve written but nonsensical comments without a single grain of truth to it, then believe it or not I would be mightily relieved. Nothing could please me more than having these notes classified as a prominent example of the unfortunate results of drinking too much poor quality wine during the holiday season. Unfortunately, however, I don’t count on this. I’m notoriously fastidious as regards fine wines.
Dr. Ezio Bonsignore
Editor-in-Chief
Military Technology

Armed Services take first big hit in public spending

(How unusual the Government yet again sets such low standards and still fails to achieve them)

The Armed Forces yesterday became the first significant victims of government attempts to reduce spending in the face of the advancing recession.

Two programmes worth £20 billion will be cut and delayed after defence chiefs were told that there was not enough money to go ahead as planned.

The announcement throws into disarray the Army’s £16 billion update to armoured vehicles, while the Royal Navy’s £3.9 billion project for two new 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers is postponed for two years.

The statement from John Hutton, the Defence Secretary, sparked anger and accusations that the cuts went against the Prime Minister’s promise to help Britain to spend its way out of the downturn.

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, called on ministers to spend more time defending Britain. “Only a few weeks ago Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling said that they would bring forward capital projects to boost the economy. Now they are announcing cuts and delays to major programmes,” he said.

The UK National Defence Association, which is supported by three former chiefs of the defence staff, voiced its concern. Commander John Muxworthy, its chief executive officer, said: “The Government is pouring hundreds of billions of pounds into a possibly vain endeavour to solve the financial and banking crisis but at the same time cutting back on the nation’s defence and security. This is folly.”

Defence sources said that Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, had argued robustly to stick to the existing aircraft carrier programme under which the first ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, would have come into service in 2014, and the second, HMS Prince of Wales, in 2016.

He and the other Service chiefs had expressed “disappointment” at the proposals but they had reached a collective decision to give their approval when faced with the financial imperative of saving money and ensuring the highest priority be given to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two carriers — first announced in 1998 as the centrepiece of the Government’s new expeditionary strategy — were supposed to have entered service in 2012 and 2014 but were then delayed two years. Mr Hutton’s announcement means that HMS Queen Elizabeth will now not be ready for action until at least 2015.

It is a serious blow for the Royal Navy, which has had to bear the brunt of the cost-saving exercise forced on Mr Hutton to balance the books and resolve a £2 billion hole in the defence budget. New fuel tankers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, vital support vessels for the Navy, have also been delayed.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, had recently been reassured that the Army’s Future Rapid Effect System (Fres), a new generation of 3,000 armoured vehicles to replace ageing models such as the Saxon troop-carrier and Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle, was high on the list of MoD priorities. The original in-service date for these new vehicles of 2009 is now seen as pie in the sky.

With an overall price tag of £16 billion, however, Mr Hutton has had to cut a swath through the Army’s programme. A new utility vehicle to replace the Saxon was supposed to be based on the Piranha V design. In May, before the credit crunch began to bite hard, the MoD announced that it had provisionally accepted this design. Mr Hutton said yesterday that he was withdrawing approval for the vehicle and gave no date for when a new round of bids could be made. He acknowledged that it would mean a delay in the programme.

He is pressing ahead, however, with a Fres version of the Scimitar and Spartan vehicles, as well as a programme to upgrade the existing Warrior armoured infantry fighting vehicle.

If you have read down this far without feeling GUILTY about what we are doing to our armed forces then you are a better man then me. I urge you ALL to join Actions Groups to stop us becoming a coastal defence forces.

Royal Navy cuts betray our brave sailors

Last week I had the pleasure of spending time meeting our Royal Navy personnel in the Gulf, and their American counterparts.

By Dr Liam Fox

I cannot overstate what an amazing job our Navy is doing in that region of the world. Every senior American officer I met praised the British contribution to the maritime security operations in the Gulf as being essential for success. Vice Admiral Gortney, Commander of the US Fifth Fleet, told me that the Royal Navy's mine clearance capabilities are the best in the world. Of course, in the event of an attempted closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, our mine clearing ships will be absolutely vital.

To show its thanks this Government has conned the Royal Navy into taking cuts that it can barely cope with while still asking it to do more and more.

The path, which has led us to where our Navy is today, has been one of betrayal and contempt by the Government. Time and time again, since the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, our Navy has been blackmailed into accepting cuts to its fleet to ensure the eventual addition of the two new carriers which are so desperately needed.

In the 1998 Strategic Defence Review our Navy agreed to cut its fleet of 12 attack submarines to 10 and its fleet of 35 destroyers and frigates to 32 – in return for the promise of the two carriers. A decade later we find our Navy with only 8 attack submarines (with a probable reduction to only 6 or 7) and an astonishingly low 22 destroyers and frigates. Yet maritime commitments have not decreased since 1998, but have risen at a time when our Navy has been slashed, mothballed, and in some cases, sold off.

I suspect that there must be a profound sense of betrayal that is now felt by our brave sailors and submariners. And who can blame them?

And we are now hearing rumours of further cuts and potential delays to the carrier programme. Make no mistake; any further cuts to our front line resources will have an impact on Britain's national security capability. We live in an uncertain and dangerous world. A world where our economic and security interests are so interlinked into a larger global interdependent network that we have an unavoidable shared set of interests with a multitude of actors in all parts of the globe. As a consequence, Britain's economic, trade, and security interests are not only found here at home, Gibraltar, or the Falklands, but around the globe from the Hormuz Strait to the Malacca Strait – and most everywhere in between. In this complex world, British interests have no boundaries.

Because of this we must have the ability to project power, influence, and if necessary, military force around the world – when a carrier group moves into the Gulf it sends a clear message to the region. This is more relevant now than at any time in our recent history. Yet we have a Government which has continued to make commitments it is unable to resource.

A perfect example of this is our involvement in the forthcoming EU-led maritime security mission off the Horn of Africa. In order to contribute a frigate to this mission we had to take a frigate planned for deployment to the South Atlantic and replace it with a Royal Fleet Auxiliary maintenance ship – a very important ship but hardly a ship of war! The Government must explain how this won't impact on the security of the Falklands. What on earth are we doing putting EU flag-waving ahead of our own security priorities? EU nations could have chosen to supplement the coalition force CTF 150 or the Nato mission in the region. It all smacks of politics more than piracy, and Labour have played into the hands of those who want more EU military capability, just as Tony Blair did at St Malo ten years ago.

The high seas are a dangerous place to operate. Pirates are capturing hundreds of millions of pounds sterling in loot off the coast of Africa, Iran has just finished a full naval exercise in the Gulf around the Strait of Hormuz, and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has recently announced the construction of several aircraft carriers within the next two years which could eventually lead to a total of five or six aircraft carrier battle groups.

The fact that our navy is able to accomplish so much and be held in such high regard even after a decade of Labour neglect is testament to the professional ethos of every sailor, marine and submariner in the Royal Navy. To think that Britain can manage its current maritime responsibilities with anything less than it has now is not only unrealistic but a betrayal of our heritage and downright irresponsible in a dangerous age.

* Dr Liam Fox is the shadow defence secretary

Missing Royal Navy Life?

1. Build a shelf in the top of your wardrobe, fit a thin mattress and sleep on top of it.

2. Remove the wardrobe door and replace it with a curtain that is too small.

3. Wash your socks and underpants in the bathroom sink every night, then hang them on the water pipes to dry.

4. Four hours after you have gone to bed, instruct your wife to whip open the curtain, shine a torch in your face and say, "Sorry mate, wrong pit!"

5. When you have a shower, remember to turn the water off when you soap.

6. Every time there is a thunderstorm, sit in a wobbly rocking-chair and rock as hard as you can until you are violently sick.

7. Put diesel oil into a humidifier and set it on high to achieve that wonderful Ship Aroma.

8. Don't watch TV except for a movie at 2030. For added realism, have the family vote for which movie to have and then select a different one.

9. Leave a lawnmower running in the house to re-create correct noise levels.

10.Have the postman or paperboy give you a haircut fortnightly.

11.Once a week, blow compressed air up your chimney, ensuring that the soot is carried over to your neighbour's home. When he comes to complain, laugh in his face and say "That's life in a blue suit mate"

12.Buy a rubbish compactor, but only use it once a week, storing all of your rubbish in the shower cubicle.

13.Wake up at midnight each night and make a sandwich out of anything you can find.

14.Have a fridge in your home specifically for beer. put a lock on it and give the key to the local policeman.

15.Keep spare keys for above and empty it every lunchtime.

16.Devise your family menu a week in advance without looking in the fridge or freezer.

17.Once a month, take apart every household appliance then re-assemble them.

18.Use four spoonfuls of coffee per cup and wait 3 hours before drinking it.

19.Invite 40 people you don't like, to stay in your house for a couple of months.

20.Install a small fluorescent strip light under your coffee table then lie underneath it to read a book.

21.Raise the thresholds and lower the top sills of all the doors in the house, so you will either bang your head or skin your shins every time you pass through them.

22.When baking a cake, prop one side of the cake tin against the side of the oven and when it has cooled, spread icing thickly on lower side to even it out.

23.Every so often throw one of the dogs into the bath and scream "Man overboard!" Sling in a sponge with a flag on it, then run into the kitchen and sweep all the pots and pans onto the floor and yell at your wife for not securing for sea.

24.Get your wife and kids to clean their rooms every evening and at 1900 wander around the house with the local policeman.

25.Name your favourite shoes "Steaming Bats" then get the kids to hide them around the house.

26.Lie on your bed, or sofa and fart for absolutely no reason.

27.Insist on going to the local post office for your mail and get them to phone you when it is ready for collection.

28.On Saturday morning walk around the house, whistling loudly and insist that everyone you pass stands to attention.

29.Paint the outside of your house battleship grey and put the number on the wall in big black letters.

30.Put windows and a bloody big wheel in your loft.

31.Every Thursday at 0500 in the morning, run around the house yelling "Hands to Action Stations!"

32. When the family demands more food, yell back at them "WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FOR 39p PER DAY, PER MAN"!