This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/8466961.stm

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Admiral to defend Royal Navy role Admiral defends Royal Navy role
(about 6 hours later)
The UK's First Sea Lord is to stress the importance of having a Royal Navy fleet that can operate worldwide with full capabilities. The UK must look "beyond Afghanistan" and maintain a Royal Navy fleet able to operate with full capabilities around the world, the First Sea Lord has said.
In a speech, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope will say the UK's influence and commercial interests depend on it. Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said the Afghan conflict was not the "only game in town".
UK military chiefs have been outlining their visions for future defence needs, ahead of the defence review. He warned that the Navy had to be ready for "surprises and strategic shocks", like the Falklands invasion.
On Monday the head of the army called for a shift in defence spending, with less emphasis on expensive equipment. On Monday, the head of the Army called for a shift in defence spending, with less emphasis on expensive equipment.
BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt says that Admiral Stanhope will counter that view in his speech in London later. The BBC's defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said Army chief Gen Sir David Richards and Adm Stanhope agreed that Britain must be well-prepared for future conflicts, and that prevention was better than cure.
Both the head of the army, Sir David Richards, and the Royal Navy's chief agree that Britain must be well-prepared for future conflicts, and that prevention is better than cure. However, their visions for how that should be done differed in some key aspects, she added.
However, their visions for the future for Britain's armed forces differ in some key aspects, our correspondent adds. Both men are making their case ahead of a major review of defence spending.
ANALYSIS Caroline Wyatt, BBC defence correspondent Many will see Admiral Stanhope's arguments as a direct riposte to the idea that Britain has put too much emphasis on "hugely expensive equipment". He will say that the UK's influence and commercial interests depend on a fleet that can operate worldwide with full capabilities. Where the head of the Army argued for more specialised and highly skilled soldiers, the head of the Navy will cite the Falklands as the type of strategic shock that the UK must remain fully prepared to counter. class="" href="/2/hi/uk_news/8466970.stm">Military chiefs fight their corners 'Hard power'
Admiral Stanhope will argue that the forces must look beyond the example of Afghanistan. Adm Stanhope said Britain must "have the strategic flexibility to deal not just with Afghanistan, but also the broad range of other threats and challenges to our national interests today and in the future".
Meanwhile, Gen Richards argued for more specialised and highly skilled troops on the ground. He acknowledged the "public funding challenge," but said a threat like the Falklands War could come "in from the left field" at any time.
Strategic shock ANALYSIS Caroline Wyatt, BBC defence correspondent Many will see Admiral Stanhope's arguments as a direct riposte to the idea that Britain has put too much emphasis on "hugely expensive equipment". He says the UK's influence and commercial interests depend on a fleet that can operate worldwide with full capabilities. Where the head of the Army argued for more specialised and highly skilled soldiers, the head of the Navy cites the Falklands as the type of "strategic shock" that the UK must remain fully prepared to counter. class="" href="/2/hi/uk_news/8466970.stm">Military chiefs fight their corners
He told the International Institute for Strategic Studies there was too much emphasis on cutting-edge technology and not enough on cheaper troops and staff. On Monday, Gen Richards told the International Institute for Strategic Studies that there was too much emphasis on cutting-edge military hardware and not enough on training troops.
"Our armed forces are primarily structured and equipped for the last war, for a war of technology against technology, armour against armour," he said."Our armed forces are primarily structured and equipped for the last war, for a war of technology against technology, armour against armour," he said.
"We have pared down our forces numbers, replacing people with hardware and thoughts with process.""We have pared down our forces numbers, replacing people with hardware and thoughts with process."
Although Gen Richards has suggested the emphasis on expensive equipment such as fast jets or larger warships is not the answer for the future, Admiral Stanhope is expected to challenge that view, saying the navy contributes significantly to defending Britain's global interests as a maritime nation. But Admiral Stanhope said the "soft power" of individual soldiers depended on the "underpinning credibility" of "hard power".
He will also use the Falklands as an example of the kind of strategic shock Britain must remain ready to counter. 'No split'
The Royal Navy fears that some planned projects, such as two new aircraft carriers and the US fighter jets to put on them, could be cut or scaled back in the defence review. As an example, he cited the controversial replacement of the Trident nuclear submarine system - something senior Navy figures worry could be scrapped to save money, but something he said was vital "to deliver the ultimate security guarantee of our nation".
The Navy was also concerned that two new aircraft carriers, costing £3.2bn, could also be mothballed or delayed, but Admiral Stanhope said these would benefit the entire armed forces.
"We have got to be clear that the requirement for the carriers is part of a joint requirement for defence as a whole, and the effect they provide is a joint effect, not a maritime effect in isolation," he said.
But Admiral Stanhope, breaking off from his set speech in London on Tuesday, denied he was in conflict with Gen Richards, insisting that "much" of what the army chief had said "resonated" with his own views.
"Whilst there is a desire to see a split between us and indeed, if I may say so, a frenzy of 'chiefs again at loggerheads' - we are not.
"What we are trying to do is pursue a clear well-articulated debate about what defence needs."