In his final public address as Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin cautioned against reducing the future of UK defence to what he called “simplistic ‘either / or’ debates.”
Speaking at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, he argued that most modern security challenges require a combined approach: “In most cases, the answer needs to be ‘and’. Hard and soft power. Regional and global. Atlantic and Pacific.”
Radakin extended this warning to the defence technology sphere, rejecting the idea that new systems should automatically displace older capabilities. “It’s a false choice to think we can simply dispose with the old altogether in order to make way for the new, or that there is an easy trade-off to be had between capability and mass,” he said.
He recalled a period 15 years ago when counter-insurgency in Afghanistan dominated UK priorities, and platforms not deemed relevant to that mission were often questioned. “Why was the Navy building anti-air destroyers when all it really needed was cheap and cheerful corvettes to go after Somali pirates? And couldn’t the RAF make do with Tucanos rather than Typhoons?”
According to Radakin, preserving high-end warfighting capabilities during that period has paid dividends.
“Thankfully we worked hard to protect enough of these kinds of platforms – and preserve the warfighting instincts required for peer competition. And it’s a good job we did, because these are precisely the ‘big sticks’ and capabilities that are in demand now to counter a resurgent Russia and to defend against the kind of long-range missiles that the Houthis are using in the Red Sea.”
The outgoing CDS emphasised that the UK’s strategic posture benefits from having retained these assets while also adopting emerging technologies. “We do get many of the big decisions right. More than we give ourselves credit for. And we are better at strategy than we think,” he told the audience.
However, he warned that rapid shifts in the global context make flexibility essential: “We need to be wary of simplistic choices… Resilience and redundancy, and the ability to flex and adapt… are the attributes for long-term security.”
Radakin concluded by stressing that the future force mix must not sacrifice traditional military platforms in favour of uncrewed or low-cost alternatives alone. “We are still going to need submarines and jets and armoured vehicles alongside our mass ranks of drones and uncrewed systems,” he said, framing the issue as one of balance rather than replacement.
Just another talking head with a whole lot of defence cuts on his watch.
When he’s retired he’ll be lamenting cuts like Lord West and all the rest.
“either or” or in modern UK terms …nothing or nothing being the choice of our politcal masters for the last thirty years.
He says he remembers people saying “Why was the Royal Navy building anti-air destroyers when all it needed was cheap and chearful Corvettes” ? Well he either made that up or shouldn’t have been talking to those people.
“And couldn’t the RAF make do with Tucanos rather than Typhoons”. Really, were people actually saying that ?
I think he just made all that up as only a Halfwit would spout such rubbish !
And yet the navy is heading to 11 major surface combatants and is patrolling the pacific and west Africa and the south Atlantic with ships armed with nothing more than a 30mm cannon and no 3D air search radar.. the south Atlantic has not seen a RN major surface combatant in a decade.
I would say it was not an either or choice that was made instead it ended up very much a “neither” choice.. we have neither the mass or the quality anymore. If the RN had ended up with a present force ( 2025-2030) force of 11-13 frigates and destroyers and 10-12 usable modern corvettes at 3000 tones with a medium gun, air defence missiles and a small ship fight it would be a lot more able to do its job than it is now…and if its future force was 19 large modern surface combatants at 6000-7000 tons and 11 good solid corvettes at 3000 tons it would be OK.
He did not say much about the Army, is that because its no longer much of an Army under his watch? It is sadly the weakest link, and has been for many years. New kit needed but not ordered, new kit that was ordered up to 8/10 years ago still not fully in service. Be lucky if we could scrap together one fully manned Div, it would be very short of SP Artillery that would be for sure. Many things talked about but not much ordered. Lowest man power in over 120 years.
Hardly some thing to be proud of, yet another top boss who simply thinks they did a great job when really in the case of the Army they ruined it. And its a worn out shambles. A lot of deluded people in charge who are legions in their own mind.