In a Commons exchange over the recent security breach at RAF Brize Norton, Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge pressed Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard on the financial and operational impact of the attack by members of Palestine Action, which resulted in damage to two RAF Voyager aircraft.
“Can the Minister confirm what will be the financial cost and impact of this attack on the RAF?” Cartlidge asked. “In particular, can he explain the immediate operational impact on the RAF? He says there has been no impact on planned operations from Brize Norton, but he will know that it could still mean that task lines are unintentionally reallocated to cover for the damaged aircraft. How long will the two aircraft in question be out of action for, if at all, and what has been the wider operational impact?”
Responding from the government benches, Pollard thanked Cartlidge for “the tone in which he has asked his questions and for his support for armed forces personnel,” adding that “it is important at this time that this House sends a united message that we will protect our people wherever they are in the world, but especially those serving to keep us safe and to keep our allies safe in the Middle East.”
On the substance of the questions, Pollard said: “I agree with him. I expect strong consequences for those responsible for the damage to our RAF Voyager aircraft at Brize Norton.” He added that “a number of investigations are under way, including the one commissioned by the Defence Secretary to look into what happened at Brize Norton and to learn the lessons.”
He confirmed that improvements had already been made: “I can already report that improvements at the point of entry have been made at Brize Norton. There are also investigations to look at what lessons can be applied across UK military estates in the UK and overseas.”
Pollard reassured MPs that the RAF’s operational output had not been affected. “I can confirm that in relation to the RAF Voyagers, the activities of the RAF were unaffected, because we were able to move assets to backfill those roles. One of the key things about having an agile air force is that we can do that.”
As for the damage assessment, he said: “The investigation of the damage done to the aircraft by the people who penetrated the security is ongoing, and I will report when it has been firmed up more. It is right that we give Counter Terrorism Policing the space that will allow them to conduct their investigation of the incident at Brize Norton, and the hon. Gentleman will understand why I will not be able to provide a running commentary.”
Pollard also updated the House on broader RAF deployments, noting that “we currently have about 14 [Typhoons] at RAF Akrotiri, and the Prime Minister has made it very clear that should further resources be required, we will not hesitate to roll them forward.”
I imagine the career paths of some senior RAF Officers have been grossly affected. Well I would hope so anyway. Shall we try competence as the only requirement for post selection in future?
if you sacked everyone who has failed in some way – there would be no one left – failure can lead the learning and growth.
The buck has to stop somewhere and the abject failure to even remotely secure strategic aircraft is down the the base CO!
I agree everyone organisation has to allow for some failure. The issue is the scale of the consequence of failure. A bigger question is whether there was a culture of shoulder shrugging and acceptance of failure allowed to develop within the organisation.
Base security at critical sites is the principle responsibility of the base commander. The Base Commander on taking over should be able to assess the existing security procedures and work out if they’re sufficient or not. They should also test it through some sort of penetration exercise. These exercises should also be conducted regularly and frequently to ensure security staff are always kept on their toes.
If resources are insufficient the base commander should raise a risk with higher authority and immediately ask for more resources to resolve it. Whilst additional resources are awaited they should redirect any resources they do have into mitigating the risk.
It will be interesting to see how much time the base commander at Brize Norton applied to base security in the months since their posting.
Unfortunately, whilst I agree the Base CO may have these responsibilities I doubt if they had much authority to change things too drastically because of financial constraints imposed from above.
All bases could be made more secure but in peacetime these things have been inevitably paired back as everything else in defence has been.
It has been a relatively cheap wake up call
Always follow the whys.. it’s easy to sack someone, but actually tracking why a failure occurs is the important bit.. because that actually tells you where the fuck up was.. who commissioned to perimeter fence and security infrastructure and why..who set the budget for the those projects..who set the resource levels for security and why, did they have the budget they needed.
Essentially it’s easy as f%ck to blame those in operational control, but actually you have to look to see if they were given the resources and support or if it was an impossible job..
I mostly agree but those in operational control have a duty not to be passive. They have to own their roles and if they find they can’t do it because of resources or because of bad process then they need to pass that risk on to other who can change that. That way you push ownership of the issue up the chain until it hits the blocker who is stopping you resolving it. Even if that responsibility goes all the way up to a Conservative Prime Minister who believed spending 2% on Defence was a sign of him doing a grand job.
Hiding true operational security costs by not paying for something which is essential only keeps accountants and saboteurs happy. My recent understanding of the MOD is that the core function of Defence lies somewhat behind financial control in order of precedence. If we were ever attacked it should be on a weekend. It would take a month and a weeks worth of paperwork jus to get the overtime approved.
Shrugging your shoulder and not wanting to rock the boat might be good for your career in the short term but it has terrible consequences for the country. I would hope that the Brize station commander can prove that she was on top of her game and it was the inaction of others which lies behind the recent incident.
However if this is not the case and there is evidence of an organisational culture within the RAF which is not taking security seriously I would quite happily burn the career of every station commander to rectify this.
Load of cobblers take 2 out of 9 that leaves a pretty big gap to fill!
Well no not really the contract covers 14 Aircraft not 9. There are 9 are permanently painted up and operated by the RAF, but 5 others equipped but used as charter Airliners. However they are surge capacity and can be repurposed as Tankers.
The other reason it may not be an issue is if they are easily fixable or were in maintenance, also RR Trent engines are in widespread use so swapping out by N3 or RR shouldn’t be an issue.
Interestingly one Labour MP ( who is ex RAF) was making it pretty clear that he though it would be really wrong to punish those who have had to live with and manage with the security resources they have been give.. as he pointed out.. they did not have control of what security infrastructure had been put in place over the years.
If you’re tasked with doing a critical job but cant do it because of resources you have to raise that issue until it is resolved or you find someone who is willing to bet his career on owning that risk.
Mmm the problem is that’s usually the Defence Secretary, and some have fallen on their swords over the years. The issue is and always has been the Treasury, it fundamentally hates spending money on defence and it sticks to that regardless of who the Chancellor is.
A recent incumbent (Baron MacPherson of Earls Court) was interviewed on R4 a couple of years ago and actually admitted they’d spend money on just about anything rather than actual Defence.
The fact is that other than the Red Arrows and the Guards I can’t of a single internal U.K. Defence related issue that has managed to get past that attitude this century.
MPA, Carriers, Amphibious Ships, AEW, Artillery all gapped for years, given the level of those capability Gaps do you seriously think guarding bases would be a priority ?
Unaffected? Humiliated would be a better term?
Only a humiliation if you actually care about this country, its pride and its power. Politicians have been demonstrating for years the opposite!