Rebutting The Sunday Times Article About Trump, The F35 and HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH.


Another day, another poorly researched article by a journalist about the state of the UK’s armed forces. Todays article comes from the Sunday Times (HERE) where their political editor (Tim Shipman) has published a short piece about the visit of President Trump to the UK, suggesting that he won’t visit HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH due to concerns that she’d have no planes onboard, and that it was damning compared to the state of the US armed forces.

The problem with articles like this is that they rely more on emotion and clichés than basic fact. For example he states that ‘Britain has taken delivery of just four of the state-of-the-art Lightning fighter’ and none of them has yet been deployed’. Unfortunately this is a mistake – at present the UK has taken delivery of at least 15 F35s (INFO HERE) the majority of which are in the US and working up as part of the complex process of introduction to service. Four aircraft from 617 Squadron arrived in the UK last week, and they will be joined by their peers over the next few months as the UK brings the aircraft into front line service.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

That this has happened is neither unexpected, nor secret. The UK and other nations have taken time to bring the aircraft into service, because this is a phenomenally complicated platform that will form the backdrop of the UK and many other nations fast jet capability for the next 40 plus years. Its not been deployed yet because its still working up and getting ready for service in the UK.  The UK has played a major role in this development programme, working alongside the US to help get the aircraft ready for front line service in both nations.

The article then states “Trump has 10 major carriers and all of them have a deck full of aircraft,” said one government source. “We can’t take him there. It would be embarrassing”.

This sounds like a source getting jolly confused about the reality of the current state of the US Navy. For starters there are actually 11 carriers, and many of them do not have an airwing. In fact three of them are in long term refit for at least the next 15 months to three plus years. Others have returned from deployments and only two are actually deployed overseas according to this SITE.

Another is on trials (the USS GERALD FORD) which by all accounts are not going at all well – propulsion issues, challenges with the catapults reportedly not working properly and other major problems suggest the USN is struggling to bring her into service (INFO HERE) – there is a raft of reporting on the internet like THIS ONE going into detail about just  how difficult it can be to bring a new carrier design into service. This helps remind us that the trials and tribulations experienced by QUEEN ELIZABETH pale into comparison.

In reality the US does not have 10 carriers deployed with a ‘deck full of aircraft’ – it has two forward deployed, one on trials, three in refit and the remaining five either returning from, or preparing to deploy. This perhaps illustrates that the US military is not the mighty invincible force that some believe it to be.
Authors Photo of CVN at Sea

Other navies are faring equally poorly. The French navy’s sole carrier is mid-way through a major refit and is unlikely to go to sea for at least a year, if not longer. The Russians ‘Admiral Kuznetzov’ is reportedly in a long term major refit to extend her life again. There are plenty of other navies in the world who operate carriers without planes right now – this is not a uniquely British problem.

The suggestion that Trump would somehow not appreciate the sight of the QUEEN ELIZABETH and would find worthy of ridicule is frustrating. While his presidency is certainly unconventional, a very positive message could be delivered about the ship, her capability and fact that she was about to go to the USA for trials, and then talk about how she would be used to burden share with the US Navy in the Gulf – appealing to Trumps narrative about burden sharing responsibility.  It would be easy to brief that she will shortly carry USMC F35s, and be available as an asset to support the US armed forces.

Allied to this is the message that the UK has its aircraft in the US right now, alongside the US Armed Forces and putting money and jobs into the US (protecting American workers) and will be buying many more of these aircraft – all of which protect the US industrial base (and the UK too, but that’s a separate detail). The briefing could also talk about how UK aircraft today work to support the US military on operations, sharing risks, burdens and operations and in turn helps to keep America safe.

There is a phenomenal ‘good news’ story in showing off the QUEEN ELIZABETH to President Trump – but only if doing so does not interrupt her programme. Despite the nonsense in the article about her having no planes, she is at sea right now with helicopters embarked and is about to depart for the US to conduct fixed wing trials.


Taking her off task to host President Trump may be a diplomatic win for the UK, but could easily disrupt the carefully planned timetable for fixed wing flying, and its entirely possible that her programme may not have her anywhere near the UK or in a position to host the President during his flying visit.

Equally frustrating was the cliché ridden (and not supported in anyway by evidence) line stating he would be underwhelmed by Britain’s ailing armed forces. The constant ‘doing down’ of the UK armed forces is a source of immense frustration to Humphrey, who is fed up of this sort of rubbish.

The UK armed forces are one of only a tiny number of armed forces deployed globally daily across every continent on the planet. They operate a diverse and extremely capable range of equipment to work at the most demanding level of military operations. They are well trained, equipped and have persistently proven time and time again to be fit for the job asked of them.

The phrase ‘ailing’ implies a military that is on its way out, that has no future. What utter rubbish – one only has to look at the equipment programme to see tens of billions of pounds of world beating equipment, mostly sourced from the UK’s defence industrial base and developed through UK based R&D, to enter service over the next few years. The arrival of the QUEEN ELIZABETH and the F35 is a clear statement that the UK intends to remain at the top of the military game for decades to come.

There are challenges without a doubt. But look around the world and scratch beneath the show parades and glossy propaganda, and you’ll quickly discover every military on the planet has a plethora of challenges and issues. There is probably not a single military force in history that has enjoyed the security of perfect funding for every request it had.

Instead we persist with this uniquely British journalistic trait of trying to feel sorry for ourselves, without evidence or reason and make out that everything is lost. A much better article would have focused instead on the fact that the UK enjoys a uniquely close defence partnership with the US, that our newest world class aircraft carrier has entered service with minimal issues and is designed from the outset to operate with embarked US aircraft (something no other nations aircraft carrier in history has ever done before), and that she’s in the final stages of trials before going to pick up the most advanced fighter jet on the planet and operate it at sea. It could have said ‘The UK as one of the worlds leading military powers considered showing QUEEN ELIZABETH to President Trump as a symbol of just how close the bond is between the two nations and the military burden that they share funding responsibility for, unlike other NATO nations’.

Instead it is disappointing to see journalists persist with the ‘carriers with no planes’ rubbish, because it is patently untrue. What will it take to get journalists to write accurate copy and not myths – perhaps routine and regular complaints to IPSO about this may finally see papers learn that defence is a matter for factual reporting, not tired clichés and falsehoods that do little to inform or provide actual reporting.



Comments

  1. But that is the case of journalists; instead of reporting news, the spin rumours and add to the fake news mantra which make the everyday man/woman in the street believe them. And you may respect Haynes and Brown, but they too are part of spinning rumours not reporting facts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tim is a political journalist not a defence specialist and so while it might be frustrating it is perfectly believable for him to report that some non specialist politician makes a stupid statement.

    Equally Trump will not understand that of the 10 USN supercarriers most at any one time have no aircraft and several will be in dry dock or the new one only just being worked up. If he visits it will be with 85-90 aircraft. Even in a couple of years when the F-35 is fully worked up we can not compete with that so we should not be trying.

    What is the niche specialist capability that we bring that his US colleagues can honestly say look the Brits are really helping here.

    QE2 + F35 is a big capability and we can use it to show off capability in comparison with most nations on the planet but the idea of impressing the USN or POTUS sorry we have not been in that league for some time. Sir H is correct that we are at the top end of the everybody except the US comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If there is a reason we aren't showing off Queen Elizabeth, wouldn't it be more likely because Trump dislikes the cost, lateness and nondelivery of requirements of the F35 programme? Actually, like a stopped clock, he does have a valid point with this.
    I think there is a real opportunity here for the US to purchase the design of the Queen Elizabeth. Even US defence budgets are not infinite and the lower acquisition costs of a carrier which could still host 3 squadrons of CTOL aircraft could be a winner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it is because by then, HMS QE would have sailed for trials on the US East Coast.

      Delete
  4. Honestly, if I did my job that badly I wouldn't have it! How do journalists get away with this utter tripe. I hope he reads this because his article is beyond contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Once respected newspapers like the Times and the DT are little more than tabloid rags these days and defence 'reports' in particular need to be taken with a sizable pinch of salt. Unfortunately, the majority of readers who lack more in-depth knowledge will not have the time or inclination to research the subject and uncover the truth behind the sensationalist headlines. Editors know that bad news grabs attention so keep on churning out negative drivel to brainwash their readers. I rarely buy newspapers now and my online subscriptions lapsed years ago - money for old rope.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Inasmuch as he holds a non-defence-related role, it does not excuse him for making inaccurate or 'fake news' articles. Most especially since he is a senior journalist (editor) and has access not just to human sources but easily (Google-ble) resources and archives we do not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My own commentary piece on this subject together with the dreadful Mail on Sunday piece in respect of Type 45 follows along similar lines to yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

OP WILMOT - The Secret SBS Mission to Protect the QE2

Is It Time To Close BRNC Dartmouth?

"Hands to Action Stations" Royal Navy 1983 Covert Submarine Operations Off Argentina...