United States | Dispatch to the United Kingdom

[Odinson]

"We would of course need to know the quantity of aircraft and personnel that would be stationed at Edwards by your forces. And while you may send ground security forces, I am afraid that they will not be able to play any meaningful part of the base's security. However, if you want men to be able to stand outside of your hangars all night, be our guest," he said.

"Once your office has sent over what assets will be in Edwards, along with the flight path that they'll be taking to get there, I can pass along the proposal to the Defense Department and we can get it green-lit for July," he said.

Jamie

 

[Jamie]

"Is there any arrangement that would permit the RAF Regiment supporting base security?" there was a drawn out pause "Truth be told, the UK election next year is looking favorable for a Conservative Party win and the hopeful for that is our Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Lawrence Adams. I, for one, see a value in the Treaty of Washington but I know Lawrence has concern that the agreement offers the UK no real benefit. Having a base in North America does very little for us so my goal is to make use for it. This would mean we'd be looking to use it more for Exercises at the minimum as right now. Deploying the RAF Regiment allows a different experience for those involved and prevents budget cuts from a Royal Air Force point of view.

If we're been realistic, they'd never be an operation in North America that warrants UK forces to be present even as a forwarding operating base so the US certainly benefits more but the cooperation we share from it is priceless but your last couple of statements, and I quote, 'if you want men to be able to stand outside of your hangars all night, be our guest' and questioning our intended deployment at all, simply comes across as it's not something you're particularly in support of which if that's the case, which is no issue, but then perhaps the Treaty needs a complete review to work better for both parties or discontinuing in favor of TASA which covers most of the Washington Agreement which was focused on mutual defence.

The focus here is that the treaty benefits us both and brings us closer together."

Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"I apologize if my comments came off as curt, Secretary Green. Allow me to address your points in a greater context, so that we can better understand each other's positions, because I think I now more fully understand yours," he said, before taking a breath.

"In regard to on-base security forces... While I was not Air Force Security Forces, I did serve in the Air Force. Their role is necessary and important. However, a large part of their job does require them to stand around, guarding facilities that may never come under any kind of attack. But, they must always be ready and always be vigilant. The Security Forces not only are responsible for only allowing friendly personnel and select civilians in, but also keeping the bad guys out. In the past, Air Force Security Forces have had to kill both armed, and in a handful of unique cases involving vehicles, unarmed civilians who were trying to breach base perimeters. If your security forces want to actually participate in base-security at Edwards, the Royal Air Force and your government would need to understand that a scenario could arise where one or more of your forces, working in tandem with ours, would have to shoot and kill a deranged service member, or a civilian. I'm not saying that to doubt your force's ability to carry out their duty, not at all, but I am just reminding you to evaluate the ramifications of a British soldier killing an American civilian in the United States, even if justified. My first inclination, honestly, is that it may actually go over better politically in the United States, than in London... With that being said, if your government feels strongly that they would like the RAF security forces to participate in on-base security at Edwards, I will make sure the Secretary of The Air Force finds out. I am sure that there are meaningful positions that your forces could participate in that would be both a benefit to them, and to the Air Force.

"Next is the United Kingdom's value in having forces stationed at Edwards. If I could be so bold as to offer my personal opinion... perhaps it would be more of a benefit to your government and the RAF to house a number of tankers at Edwards, along with the other assets you decide to deploy there. This could allow the RAF to fly across the United States, refuel midair, and conduct operations in the Pacific without needing to land - or at least to be able to make it to an American facility in the Pacific where they could refuel. There is of course nothing stopping your government from requesting a different facility for you to operate out of. There are a handful that the Federal Government would not be able to approve, but we would at least be willing to at least hear a request for most of our facilities. I want to remind you that our government respects the exact terms of the Treaty of Washington, but the Gore Administration equally respects the spirit of it as well. Regardless of where your forces are based from, if the RAF needed to refuel somewhere in the United States, we would not only make our facilities available, but probably offering to do an air-to-air refueling if the situation permitted, and if it was necessary.

"That brings me to my final point - The Treaty of Washington itself. I think that your government may underestimate how much the Federal Government values it. I am not being hyperbolic when I say that it is the foundation for all trust and mutual respect that comes from both the White House and the Capitol. I can attest that the Gore Administration puts the Special Relationship between our governments on a pedestal when it comes to how the State Department treats our alliances and friendships with other nations, and the Special Relationship would quickly become much less tangible, and much more abstract, if there was not a treaty to solidify it.

"With all of that being said, I hope that I have done a better job of explaining my government's position on these matters," the Ambassador concluded.

Jamie

 

[Jamie]

"I appreciate the feedback from your point of view, I thought it was valuable to give our initial impression to ensure we're both on the same page and share the same ideals, its reassuring to know how importance our relationship is and it's something we reciprocate; hence this call which will simply allow us to have a better understanding from one another. We're happy to retain our security force as been inside the base, in that case. The question isn't to put your own air force security into the spotlight, nor to question their abilities. It's more of a policy the Royal Air Force have introduced given the cost and technology inside aircraft, the RAF Regiment will be stationed nearby the aircraft at all times - even if that is outside the hangers which is no different to been on the fence-line all night as your own security forces would be.

We've considered a tanker force, the issue we're facing is that the armed forces haven't had any requirement or otherwise to operate in North America and by extension, the Pacific. This in itself is of course a good thing and I know we would be able to rely on your support if, for whatever reason, that changed. Perhaps, rather than amending the current stance, I could pencil in a summit to take place with the incoming government next year to discuss the Treaty as a whole, with an intention to expand on it if that is something you would be interested in supporting? It would give ample time for both parties to consider what they would like and how the Treaty of Washington can develop - especially as next year would mark the 5th year since it was signed. Some initial considerations could be the sharing of intelligence, technology and to have it in an agreement on how we can cooperate further. Maybe in the form of a state visit which I know hasn't happened in some time?"

Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"That is perfectly fine from our point of view, I'm sure that we can find meaningful places for them to participate in base security along with the Air Force Security Forces. In regard to a summit, I think that is a great idea. President Gore still has two years left in his presidency, but he has only travelled to a handful of countries outside of the United States. If your government would be interested in hosting the state visit this time, I believe that the President would be willing to come to London for this meeting. However, if the new Prime Minister would prefer to come to Washington we could of course arrange that as well. Our national Presidential election will take place in November of 2004, so it would of course be important that we made this happen in 2003, preferably in early 2003. The Administration would be more than willing, and happy, to discuss the topics that you have mentioned.

"Apologies for bringing this up again, but in regard to the AV-8B Harrier II, how much would your government charge per harrier if we were interested in purchasing a batch? We are considering purchasing somewhere between 20-60," he said.

Jamie

 

[Jamie]

"We would be happy to host such a visit in the United Kingdom, one that would hopefully match the Prime Ministers last visit to the US which was extremely welcoming. We could definitely look to arrange it early 2003 before the Presidential election, the meeting would serve as a great benchmark for what is to come for the next few years and beyond. To answer your question regarding the Harrier costs, Nexus handle the general sale of the product - the only reason for our involvement is due to the interest in buying ownership of the product. I'm afraid you would need to speak to Nexus to arrange a quotation.

I do have a question of my own, actually, regarding the acquisition of equipment." There was a short pause "Truth be told, I don't know if I would get the funding approved, or whether I'll be in this job come the election, but I'm very interested in modernizing certain elements of our armed forces which at the moment... is a struggle due to budget constraints. Trying to get the government to grant a bigger budget is challenging. We've been lucky enough to secure money for a new fighter program in the form of the Eurofighter Typhoon but that was a story in itself.

I'm growing invested in replacing our ageing Sea King helicopters but my interest is a replacement that could grant them much larger range and capacity -- almost to let them operate themselves without the need of the Royal Air Force to contribute. I'm to understand the capabilities of the MV-22 Osprey may provide that capability.

Is this something that you would be open to selling, if this is something you can answer? It's unlikely to be an immediate option but it's something I'd like in the pipeline depending on its availability. I'm not convinced it'd be suitable for our carriers yet but may as well ask the question!" he concluded enthusiastically.

Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"The MV-22 Osprey is owned by Boeing. However, the State Department typically negotiates all arms deals of this nature, with approval from the Department of Defense and the final go-ahead from the White House... When it comes to a deal of this nature with our closest ally, I have no doubt that an arrangement could be made. We would be happy to arrange a fair sale of the Osprey to the Royal Navy. Through the Department of Defense, we could issue a Limited Production License to the United Kingdom for a set amount of units with a lump-sum payment beforehand. There are also people in DoD that can put in a word to Boeing so that the Royal Navy may receive some kind of a discount... If that was done, do you think that the Ministry of Defence could do something similar for us with Nexus?" he asked.

"I would be happy to talk specifics if that is something you wanted to do now. To be honest, I was told in a briefing that the Osprey was a unit that our friends may want to obtain in the near future. Do you have a ballpark of how many units that the Royal Navy would be interested in?" he asked.

Jamie

 

[Jamie]

"That would be fantastic, like I said, it's an early consideration but one I would like to be taken seriously within my own government. The ageing Sea King helicopters are not ideal for the current climate and admittedly, our armed forces are growing further behind every day in terms of the technological aspects of warfare. A lot of change is pending on the upcoming election but if we are in for a Conservative win, then I could certainly push for supporting discounts with Nexus. Naturally, a future government may have differing opinions but time will tell. Currently, the Navy operates 32 Sea Kings so it may be around that number for the Ospreys.

The MV-22 would allow our marines to operate further away and without the need for support from other branches, or nations when operating. The area of concern is whether they are too big to operate from our carriers which are... in their nature, light carriers. Our Ocean-class can operate up to eighteen Chinook helicopters but I understand the width of the Osprey, unless folded, is significantly more. The flight deck for HMS Ocean is 30m whereas I'm to understand, the Osprey is around 25m, is that correct? This would be quite tight with little room for error on take offs and landings, thus is a consideration. Equally, I'm not sure if there may be other alternatives out there unless you have any suggestions?"

Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"I can certainly give you some more details about the Osprey. Keep in mind that the Osprey can be 'folded' for storage purposes. For example.... hang on, I will convert this into meters for you," he said. "Bare with me, please.................................. Alright, here we are. I will explain to you the dimensions when, and when not, folded," he said.

He would explain the following:

Length: 17.48 meters
Length Folded: 19.09 meters

Width: 25.78 meters
Width Folded: 5.61 meters

"If the Royal Navy is concerned about the somewhat closer margin of error, I would simply recommend that they look into training their pilots to take off parallel as they normally would, but to consider landing perpendicular in poor weather conditions or rough seas. Once they have landed, they have wheels and they can turn. If this is something that the Royal Navy would still be concerned about, then they could stick with the Chinook which is a proven aircraft for these kinds of missions," he said.

Jamie

 

[Jamie]

A short silence followed as Jason focused on taking a few notes. It was certainly a consideration but something he'd need to look into further "Thank you for the information. I'll sit on it and discuss the options open too us internally. I'm an advocate for the Osprey and with a new government now in place, I'm aiming to push for a defence review that will hopefully put our military footing ahead of the curve. That said, I'm sure I'll be in contact to converse further in that eventuality. In the meantime, is there any news on President Gore's situation?" Jason concluded firmly. He had nothing else to raise on official grounds and at this point.

Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"The President is doing considerably better," he said. "The White House has been through quite a lot lately, but everything went right and the President is likely to make a full recovery. It has been months since the President was shot, but he still has to use a cane sometimes. From what I understand, he wont need it any more after the end of this month. I know that what happened to him has changed his mind on some things, politically, and that he has a new outlook on life," he said.

Jamie

 

[Jamie]

"That's great to hear" Jason replied "I'm intrigued by the new outlook he has but I know my government are interested in hosting a state visit in the coming months.. I don't know the finer details but I'm sure you'll hear from our Foreign Secretary in due course.
In the meantime, is there anything else you'd like to discuss?"

Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"I know that the President will be very excited to hear about the possibility of a state visit coming up. I know that the President would like to make some more international trips this year, and the United Kingdom is at the top of that list.... No, I do not have anything else to discuss with you for now. Thank you for your time, and give everyone in your office my best," he said. If there was nothing else to discuss and the conversation was over, he would hang up the phone and end the call.

Jamie