Defence chief attacks Armed Forces cuts Sir David was speaking in a lecture to Oxford University's Department of Politics and International Relations last week. Addressing about 70 students, academics and members of the public, he spoke of the limitations put on the Armed Forces by the Coalition's spending cuts. The defence budget is being cut by 8 per cent and the Armed Forces are losing 30,000 personnel. The Navy has no working aircraft carrier and its surface fleet is based on six destroyers and 13 frigates. Gen Richards said he was particularly worried about the size of the fleet and suggested that a shortage of ships meant resources were being allotted to the wrong tasks. "One of my biggest concerns is the number of frigates and destroyers the Navy has," he said. Gen Richards cited the Navy's Operation Atalanta to counter piracy in the Indian Ocean. A lack of ships has forced admirals to use the most advanced warships for relatively simple operations, the general said. "You get to this ridiculous situation where in Operation Atalanta off the Somali coast, we have £1 billion destroyers trying to sort out pirates in a little dhow with RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] costing $50, with an outboard motor [costing] $100," he said. That can't be good. We've got to sort it out. Sir David also suggested that the Coalition's plans to cut the number of senior officers would weaken Britain's international standing. Ministers have claimed that the Forces are top-heavy with star-ranked officers: brigadiers and generals in the Army, commodores and admirals in the Navy and air marshals in the RAF. The general said that having fewer senior officers would make it harder for the British forces to form effective working relationships with other military services. As we shrink the Armed Forces, you require more defence engagement. The reduction of numbers makes that more difficult," he said. If you can't do some of the more obvious things that mass allows, you need more defence attachés, more students in foreign war colleges to influence them, to engage in more partnering. The reduction of our numbers makes this more difficult. He added: "We are under very great political pressure, from the very top down, to look at our star count, the number of generals you have in relation to the overall size of the Armed Forces. The same equation applies all the way down the officer ranks. The irony is that if you want to retain influence, you actually need more officers and more [star] ranks. Sir David, a former Nato commander in Afghanistan, also gave a frank assessment of Nato's 11-year mission, suggesting that several opportunities had been missed. Politicians, diplomats and generals had all failed to seize chances to build a more stable country, he said. All the military can do is buy space and time and opportunity for a political resolution of a problem. It is a great shame that we have not understood this. This is not a matter for military, diplomats, politicians. This is a matter of collectively failing to exploit the opportunity the military gained. The general also admitted failings in the conduct of the military operations: "This is not a model of how to conduct a counter insurgency operation." Sir David last night said that he supported the Government's strategy, but that it was right to be "candid" about military resources. "It is the job of senior military commanders to help the Government assess priorities against the resources available, especially in the current economic conditions," he said. It is right that candid military analysis keeps the Government aware of constraints while the Government, rightly, seeks to achieve the maximum effect with the assets available. I and the Chiefs of Staff agree that we can deliver the military capability required with the resources available. On Afghanistan, he said: "We all agree that you cannot win an insurgency through military means alone, it has always been understood that a political solution will ultimately be required."