RN Fleet to be Cut by Half

[ORAC]

Torygraph: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml) Navy to cut its fleet by half

Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure. Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force. The Government has admitted that 13 unnamed warships are in a state of reduced readiness, putting them around 18 months away from active service. Today The Daily Telegraph can name a further six destroyers and frigates that are being proposed for cuts.

A need to cut the defence budget by £250 million this year to meet spending requirements has forced ministers to look at drastic measures. MoD sources have admitted it is possible that the Royal Navy will discontinue one of its major commitments around the world at a time when Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has said more ships are needed to protect the high seas against terrorism and piracy......

The six warships to be mothballed are the Type 22 frigates Cumberland, Chatham, Cornwall and Campbeltown and two Type 42 destroyers Southampton and Exeter. It is likely that they will eventually be sold or scrapped. There are also fears in the Admiralty that two new aircraft carriers, promised in 1998, might never be built.......

Two of eight advanced air defence Type 45 destroyers on the Navy's order books will not be bought, defence sources said. The order is already six months behind schedule and £157 million over budget.

A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us."

Defence sources said it would be unlikely that the Navy could now launch an armada of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands in 1982. Steve Bush, editor of the monthly magazine Warship World, said the MoD was bankrupt following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "After 10 years of Labour government, the Royal Navy is on its knees without immediate and proper funding. I cannot see how it can recover —especially if Mr Brown becomes the next prime minister," he said.

There are already reports that ships on operations are ignoring faults to weapons systems in order to save money but will spend cash if it is a health and safety issue.

The Navy is expected to lose one of its three carriers, Invincible, which has been laid up in Portsmouth. One of the three major ports is also under threat of closure. It is believed that the historic Navy headquarters of Portsmouth is most vulnerable. Two unnamed mine counter-measure vessels and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers, Brambleleaf and Oakleaf, are also under threat.

Adam Ingram, the defence minister, admitted in a Parliamentary answer last month that 13 ships were at sea with 18 in port at 48 hours notice to deploy. The decision to tie up another six frigates will mean the Navy has just 25 warships left. This would mean giving up a major commitment such as the anti-drugs and hurricane support role in the Caribbean.

To protect Britain from attack today, the country has the frigates Monmouth and Montrose available with the carrier Ark Royal about to re-enter service after a lengthy refit.

The MoD said yesterday that it had no plans to cut the destroyer and frigate fleet but it "routinely reviewed" defence capabilities "to ensure resources are directed where our front line Armed Forces need them most". A spokesman said: "We are some way from any decisions and just because a proposal is looked at does not mean that it will be implemented"

A final decision on the cuts is expected next month.

[WhiteOvies]

The Navy's turn had to come, after the whole paratroops without parachuting saga. The article made some good points and it is incredibly shortsighted to consider what is proposed. No change there then from the beancounters!:mad:

Less welcome was the input from Lewis Page to use this as an oppurtunity to:
a) plug his book (again)
b) say how pointless and expensive Type 45 is
c) say a carrier with the right aircraft can also do the destroyer's job much better
d) not mention that the destroyers protect carriers
e) not mention that 2 carriers can only be in 2 places at any one time.

Now I am quite a fan of CVF and Dave (not bothered which as long as we get some) but carriers do not make a Fleet on their own.

If only we had the resources to match our governments aspirations.:{

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Call me paranoid but a thought always at the back of my mind is how this fits the political aims of various groups. Having the finest man for man (sod PC!) Military on the planet has, arguably, sustained our position as a post Imperial world power. There have been throughout most of the last Century those who resent and oppose that; and I suspect some who post on this Forum. I'm thinking of the likes of International Socialists (the "thinking" end of the original Labour Party), radical Economists who feel their ideals spoiled by spending an a military and its infrastructure, self serving business owners that see their wealth being diverted outside their immediate benefit and the pink fluffy people for whom any form of violence is immoral. Was that the deal given to New Labour? Castrate the military, by whatever means, and we'll leave you to your Thatcherite tendencies and Constitutional reform (which they would like). It would explain how he and his are so unbelievably fireproof; or am I crediting f**kwits with organisational ability?

One thing you can put money on is that Joe Public may huff and puff a bit but, sure as hell, won't want to put their hands deeper in their pocket (more than Uncle Gordon already has) nor accept service reductions in other areas. As others have commented elsewhere, this will lead to implosion of the RN. Does it take us a further step towards Canadianisation?

[doubledolphins]

Who the hell is "Lewis Page"? Talking about 22s absorbing the air attacks. I thought only Broadsword (and Brilliant, sorry, have been put right by a couple of oppos on that one) made it down there. I think he means 21s, they did do badly, as AW knows only too well. The ones that survived did not last long after 1982 any way. If you are going to express an opinion in the National Press at least make sure your facts you choose to back you up are correct!

[Hueymeister]

Still, 240 odd 'Tybuffoons' are still being procured. How long will the FAA still exist before being over-run by Pongo's or Crabs? We are heading down the league tables pretty bloomin' quick!

[SASless]

Considering the fact you folks are an "island" nation.....one would think the Navy of all things would be deemed important for your survival in time of war. Perhaps the current bunch of losers at the helm believe there will never be another war in European waters?

[Tim McLelland]

It prompts me to ask what possible use their is for a modern British naval fleet, other than a carrier force? Where and when is such a capability ever going to be required? *ducks under cover and waits for flack*:)

[airborne_artist]

Looks like the lad who sailed solo across the Atlantic might be one of the last of the sea-faring Brits. As SASless says, an island nation, on the edge of the Atlantic has a major strategic interest in the security of the international freight-routes and the nation as a whole.

I can't see Gordon promising an increase in the Defence budget in his manifesto, nor can I see the Tories being able to afford much more given the huge debts that Gordon has run up.

Welcome to the third world, Britain.

[Archimedes]

Looks like the lad who sailed solo across the Atlantic might be one of the last of the sea-faring Brits.

He might also be our only non-nuclear maritime power projection asset the way things are going...

[airborne_artist]

*ducks under cover and waits for flack*

Not much point in ducking if there's a submarine armed with Tomahawk or ICBM - just kiss your ass goodbye.....

[sharmine]

I thought only Broadsword made it down there.


DD

HMS Brilliant also made it down there. Both her and Broardsword came under fire with Broardsword absorbing quite a lot.

I was on Hermes and everyday looked out to see which one was goal keeping for us. Certainly started the worry beads if neither were there.

SHARMINE:D

[Tim McLelland]

Hmm, Tomohawks, that reminds me of the practicality of hanging 'em under the new all-singing, all-dancing Nimrod MRA4. That would save a few bob on submarine costs. Just a minute; if we're gonna have to replace Trident, why not shove our warheads into something a little more compact and hang them under the Nimrod too? Oh dear, Faldingworth's shut! Damn!;)

[airborne_artist]

TM - air-launched is an option, but how do you propose to a) get to the launch area unseen, b) loiter there and c) have the deterrent effect of such an unseen, powerful platform.
In this day of the internet, satcoms etc. you don't need radar to tell you a hostile aircraft is coming towards you . Read up on the Falklands ....

[timex]

It prompts me to ask what possible use their is for a modern British naval fleet, other than a carrier force? Where and when is such a capability ever going to be required? *ducks under cover and waits for flack*


So where was the fleet on Op Telic? The reason for the excellant servicability of all CHF (and CH47) A/C from the sea side of things was down to having the carriers in attendance................. Don't bother ducking.

[Not_a_boffin]

More to the point, what provided the immediate fire support on the Al-Faw? NGS from HM Ships Richmond, Chatham, and others.....

[proudfishead]

Who the hell is "Lewis Page"?

Lewis page is a retired RN Officer who is extremely bitter that he was not selected for either promotion or ship command. He blames this upon a cold war orientated navy centred around Frigates and Destroyers and believes the Navy do not consider someone who spent almost their entire service time on small ships (Mine hunters/sweepers) suitable for command of an FF/DD . . . . . funny that. The fact that he had neither the competency or social skills to be promoted or command are simply a bonus.

His book does raise some valid issues but they are written up in a particularly inflammatory and often poorly informed manner.

[MarkD]

Torygraph: This would mean giving up a major commitment such as the anti-drugs and hurricane support role in the Caribbean.

Is this something posters here feel UK should be involved in, given the distances involved?

[Tim McLelland]

As I said Timex, what possible use is there for a naval fleet other than a carrier force?

Airborne - for Tomahawks and Nimrods, I was of course being sarcastic and if you'd care to do some reading-up *ahem* you'd know that the concept of hanging stand-off missiles (nuclear or otherwise) under the MRA4 has already been looked at quite seriously, hence my tongue-in-cheek comment.

I wouldn't disagree about the submarine's capability to remain unseen, but then we're no longer in a Cold War, and perhaps a more visible nuclear capability might be more appropriate? It all rather depends on who you're proposing to wave your nuclear stick at, I guess, but now that the RAF's ability to store and handle nuclear weapons is gone, there's not much chance of it ever coming back, plus you can guarantee that the Navy will be hanging-on to Trident for as long as possible. Bless 'em, it's their only raison d'etre theses days!

[Not_a_boffin]

The dozy Doris who is Portsmouth North MP is busily changing her tune....

On December 8th 2006

But Portsmouth North Labour MP Sarah McCarthy-Fry said: 'Personally, I am not so hung up on numbers, because a modern warship can do the equivalent of six warships from 20 years ago.'

Which is arrant nonsense of the first order.....

But today on the Beeb....


Ms McCarthy-Fry said: "It's a concern for Portsmouth, the home of the Royal Navy, especially as we already have the Naval base review.
"I will be pressing ministers to make decisions based on what we need our navy to do. They should not be making them purely on the basis of cost. "The first consideration has to be our national security, then you look at the role of the navy in that."

It would be funny watching her trying to face both ways if it wasn't so serious.....

[timex]

As I said Timex, what possible use is there for a naval fleet other than a carrier force?


A Carrier Force includes Frigates and Destroyers.. Without them the Carrier Force is doomed.

[Tim McLelland]

I quite agree, but anything beyond a carrier force is surely unnecessary now, don't you think?

[timex]

I quite agree, but anything beyond a carrier force is surely unnecessary now, don't you think?


No, bear in mind we hardly have enough shipping to do the job as it stands. Not forgetting we have other jobs to do WIGs, Training, etc etc.

[BenThere]

Abandoning the traditional policy of maintaining a comprehensive naval fighting force will save a trillion pounds and more over the next twenty years. If the United Kingdom avoids situations that would require such a force, this will be seen as a brilliant, prescient analysis of the emerging world geopolitical environment which enabled a better life for all the people of the Kingdom.

On the other hand .....

[mbga9pgf]

Ladies and gents, I bring you the Tax Abuser of the Year Award....



lets see what these "savings" are being spent on.

Golden Trough Award for individual Tax abuse 2006
Commissioner of Transport for London £1,146,425

Silver Trough Award for individual Tax abuse in 2006
Chief executive of Network Rail, £1,038,000

Golden Trough Award for mass Tax abuse in 2006
Ofcom
Chief Executive, £440,667
Chief policy partner £338,579
Chief Operating Officer, £308,930
Competition, £251,186
Content and standards, £243,387
Ofcom Chief technology officer, £238,540
Director of the CEOs office, £221,692
Competition and strategic resources, £210,811
HR director, £210,191

Silver Trough Award for Mass Tax abuse in 2006
The BBC
Director general, £619,000
Deputy Director general, £456,000
Chief operations officer, £444,000
Director television, £353,000
Finance Director, £324,000
Director radio and music, £322,000
Director of strategy, £317,000
Director of new media, £311,000
Head of BBC people, £292,000
Director of marketing, £287,000
Chief executive, £228,000

Royal Mail Tax abusers
Chief executive, £1,038,000
Chief executive of Post Office Ltd, £816,000
Finance Director, 656000
Executive Director, £562,000
Executive Director, £448,000
Royal Mail Chairman, £201,000

Network Rail Tax Abusers
Chief executive, £1,027,000
Deputy Chief executive, £924,000
Director, £683,000
Director, £678,000
Chairman £210,000

Financial Services Authority Tax Abusers
Chief executive, £572,619
Director, £445,303
Chairman, £436142
Director, £383,121
Director, £379,540

Parnerships UK Tax Abusers
Chief Executive, Partnerships UK, £443,000
Deputy Chief executive, £349,000
Finance Director, £324,000
Director, £306,000

Other Tax abusers
Chief Executive, Horse race Totaliser Board £314,000
Chief executive, NHS Connecting for Health, £275,340

Chief executive, UK Atomic Energy Authority, £277,264
Chief executive, UK Shareholder executive £261,369
Chief executive, Office of Fair Trading, £255,000
Chief executive, Crown Estate, £250,000
Chief executive, British Waterways Board, £241368
Chief executive, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, £236066
Chief executive, Construction Industry Training Board £230,149
Chief executive, Learning & Skills Council Mark, £230,000
Chief executive, Audit Commission, £223,000
Chief Executive, Environment Agency £220,000
Director general, Department for International Development, £220,000
Chief executive, Job centre plus, £209,000
Chief executive, UK Film Council, £206,367
IT director, HM Revenue & Customs, £205,000
Executive chairman, Office of Fair Trading, £205,000
Executive Chairman, Monitor (NHS Foundation Trusts), £200,000
Chief executive, Partnerships for Schools, £200,000
Head of PM's delivery unit, Cabinet Office, £200,000

[MarkD]

From what I read here surely some OF-6 and above could be on that list. How much do they get?

[gar170]

This is what the reserves have to put with now.

PRESS RELEASE

PRESS RELEASE **** PRESS RELEASE **** PRESS RELEASE

Tony Blair will be issuing this shortly to all Reservists:-

Under the Emergency Powers Act (1939) as amended by the Defence Act (1978), you are hereby notified that you are required to place yourself on standby for possible compulsory military service in the British Section of the America/NATO Conflict. You may shortly be ordered to depart for the Middle East where you will join either the 3rd Battalion The Queen's Own Suicidal Conscripts or the 2nd Foot and Mouth.

Due to the recent rundown of the Navy and the refusal of P&O to lend us any of their liners, because of the deplorable state in which they were returned after the Falklands adventure, it will be necessary for you
to make your own way to the combat zone.

H.M. Government have been able to negotiate a 20% discount on one way trips with Virgin Airlines and you are strongly urged to take advantage of this offer (RyanAir also do a nice little £9.99 trip).

Because of cutbacks in Government expenditure in recent years it will be necessary for you to provide yourself with the following equipment as soon as possible:
* Combat Jacket
* Trousers(preferably khaki - but please no denim)
* Tin helmet
* Boots (or a pair of sturdy trainers)
* Gas mask
* Map of the combat zone (the Ordinance Survey 1:2800 Outdoor
Leisure Map of Afghanistan will do)
* Rifle (or any similar weapon)
* Ammunition (preferably to suit previous item)
* Suntan oil

If you are in a position to afford it, we would like you to buy a tank. (Vickers Defence of Banbury are currently offering all new conscripts a 0% finance deal on all X registration Chieftains, but hurry, as offer is only available whilst stocks last).

We would like to reassure you that in the unlikely event of anything going wrong, you will receive a free burial in the graveyard of your choice, and your next of kin will be entitled to the new War Widows pension of £1.75 per calendar month, index-linked but subject to means testing, and fully repayable should our side eventually lose.

There may be little time for formal military training before your departure and so we advise that you hire videos of the following films and try and pick up a few tips as you watch:
* The Guns of Navarone
* Kelly's Heroes
* A Bridge to Far
* The Longest Day
* Apocalypse Now
* The Matrix
* Blazing Saddles
* The Desert Song
* Mary Poppins

We do not recommend that you watch Khartoum.

To mentally prepare yourself for your mission try reading the works of Wilfred Owen or Rupert Brookes. This should give you some idea of what may be involved.

Yours faithfully, T Blair PM
A Bush - Blair Production and ....
Sponsored by Mars, The Official snack food of World War III

[brickhistory]

Sponsored by Mars, The Official snack food of World War III
I would have thought that hummus and flat bread would be the official snack food of the next go-round?!

[Jacks Down]

Extremely poor piece of news regardless of the colour of one's uniform. The military are often accused of planning to fight the last war. Surely this is a case of planning to never fight any kind of war except the current one?

[Jimlad1]

Is there a serious case for 1SL to be charged with Treason and Dereliction of Duty for failing to protect his navy and the nation?

[gar170]

I would have thought that hummus and flat bread would be the official snack food of the next go-round?!

That depends on at the end of the finacial year which MD has contributed most to party funds.:yuk:

[Tim McLelland]

Jacks I dunno whether it's bad news or just an inevitability. Okay, there's a case for a carrier force to assist with our various crusades, but this presupposes that any post-Blair government is still going to be quite as keen to follow George on his ludicrous campaigns for much longer. It's not impossible to see how when Georgie has gone, even the USA might eventually "do a Vietnam" and withdraw from this obsession with global warmongering, in which case the United Kingdom is going to be primarily concerned only with its own defence again, as it should be.

Okay, we have to accept that there are always unforseen developments which might require military power but it's almost impossible to imagine any situation which would require the presence of our Navy. Blair can justify sending the Navy to support wars that we really don't have any reason to be involved in, or to do a bit of drug busting here and there, or even the odd bit of hurricane relief... but in terms of a real need which requires huge sums of taxpayer's money? Nope, I think not. Nuclear posturing aside, we don't have the means or even the desire to concern ourselves with anything other than the direct defence of the United Kingdom, therefore a global naval power is patently at odds with our needs. Nobody (well, nobody with any sense) buys into this nonsensical notion that we're somehow defending the UK by fighting wars overseas, so surely it's inevitable that when our forces are withdrawn from Iraq, and somebody comes-up with a neat political excuse to extract ourselves from the ridiculous and bloody saga in Afghanistan, we'll be very unlikely to have any stomach for any more silly crusades. I'd venture to say that is is by no means a bad thing.

Although the UK doesn't appear to have the resources to act like a world power any longer, we can surely afford to defend our nation effectively, if we rid ourselves of our historical baggage. Naval power was once vital but then became merely useful. It must now rate as simply unnecessary.

[An Teallach]

Naval power was once vital but then became merely useful. It must now rate as simply unnecessary.

Unless you're an island nation with trade routes, fishing grounds and a fiscally vital offshore oil industry to protect.

[Tim McLelland]

I don't think we're in the business of protecting international trade routes with military force, are we? Our fishing grounds are largely at the mercy of EEC nations in any case, and both they and our offshore oil assets certainly don't require any significant naval power to protect them. Once upon a time we used Nimrods to monitor both, but even that was (rightly) considered to be a monumental waste of money.

[Cameronian]

Succinct and to the point, An Teallach. Who would have believed where we find ourselves now? It's shameful.

[Not_a_boffin]

Clearly Tim, a total force of around a dozen interceptors (sufficient to intercept any 9-11 wannabee) would be sufficient to defend UK airspace then? If we're not off "crusading" as you put it, we don't need AT or SH either. The interceptors wouldn't even have to be hi-performance (ie dogfighters or low observables), because there are no "direct" air threats to our borders anymore.......

See how easy it is once you get going.......

[An Teallach]

Tim

We'll always need to protect our trade routes, I believe the RN still does a fair bit of fisheries protection, though some of it is done by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. I think I'm right in saying that the last international British naval 'operations' before the Falklands were in the Cod War.

How long will it be until AQ learn the PIRA lesson that you can shoot as many Jocks & Toms as you like, the Western Powers only ever sit up and take note when you hit them in the pocket? For PIRA, it was shifting target from Belfast to The City. The offshore oilfields are vulnerable and our Fishhead brethren may correct me, but I'm sure they have significant operational plans in place to deal with threats to the platforms.

[Tim McLelland]

I take your point and I do agree that it's very hard to determine precisely what amount of military might can be regarded as being sufficient to protect one's own country but I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at?

There's a very big difference between addressing the defence of the United Kingdom (including our offshore interests which Al mentions) and the desire to engage in all manner of global conflicts which ultimately have no connection with our defence. What on earth are we pouring huge amounts of money and manpower into Iraq for? Has our presence there saved so much as one British life? Nope, it's actually lost quite a few. Likewise, has our presence in Afghanistan helped to make us any more secure? Nope, it's resulted in the needless deaths of British servicemen. What an earth are we doing? Unless I'm missing something very obvious, I thought the purpose of our armed forces was to defend the United Kingdon, pure and simple, which is why I have to question what possible motives we have for maintaining a significant surface fleet.

[Beeayeate]

. . . but it's almost impossible to imagine any situation which would require the presence of our Navy.

Sending a warship recently to the Lebanon to evacuate Brit nationals isn't/wasn't impossible to imagine. Doubt the same effect would have been generated if a P&O ferry had turned up instead.


:hmm:

[Melchett01]

Bear in mind, this could be a politically motivated fishing exped by Strangely Brown et al to put them in a good light - come up with an option to save millions by scrapping half the RN. When they only scrap a quarter of it, they look as though they have saved the RN and that the nation should be thankful. Not that Noo Labour would ever do anything like that. Would they?

Alternatively, it could be the truth and the money is needed to pay off Tony's mortgage or fund a drop in centre for disabled Welsh Afro Caribbean single parent lesbians.

If our Parliament isn't taking this seriously, I can guarantee that there is at least one person with an eye on this topic: Carlos Aníbal Aguilar.
And for those of you that don't know who Snr Aguilar is, he is the current director of the Argentinian National Directorate of Strategic Military Intelligence, the Argentine agency tasked with producing strategic operational and tactical intelligence and planning and the conduct of military operations.

The whole thing is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. This government is no longer operating in the national interests. It is high time Cameron showed that he has a set. He claims the Tories are ready for a snap election: prove it - call a vote of no confidence in the House: the country has lost all confidence in the current Labour administration to govern in BRITAIN'S national interests. I'm sure he would get support from the general public .... or at leas more of the general public than voted Blair back in at the last election.

PS: Has anyone else noticed that PrOOne has been strangely quiet of late on the MOD funding-related threads!

[nigegilb]

Absolutey 100% agree with Melchett. Where the hell is Cameron in all this, does he have any balls? Where are the Tories? If they fail to support the Armed Forces in their hour of need they will never be forgiven.

[airborne_artist]

Melchett - HMS Endurance has already been slated for withdrawal. My father captained the previous ship of the name from 78-80, and he and his predecessors had all warned the FO of the impending problems in the FI. He then worked his backside off in the first half of 1982 making sure we got them back again.

He and I were wallpapering on the last Sunday of Jan 82 when the duty Commander rang him from the MoD to tell him of the landings on S Georgia. We had lunch and went back to London (where I also lived and worked) early.

Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned .....

[Lyneham Lad]

Nigegilb wrote:-
"Absolutey 100% agree with Melchett. Where the hell is Cameron in all this, does he have any balls? Where are the Tories? If they fail to support the Armed Forces in their hour of need they will never be forgiven."


Bad form I know to quote oneself, but in http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=255439 I wrote:-
"However, I despair at the inability of the so-called political Opposition to really take Blair, Brown and Browne to task over their policies and their facile statements about giving the troops everything they need....... On Newsnight last night, Jeff Randall (a journalist) made a much better fist of supporting the troops than David Davies. Whilst Ruth Kelly..............well, words fail me.
Should Brown become PM then a bad situation will become a desperate situation. I feel for all of the Armed Forces who are putting their lives on the line."


Just when will Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition get off their collective backsides and do what they are supposed to do - oppose the current disastrous policies of this pathetic excuse of a Government. [/rant of]

[Polikarpov]

To rub it in, Timewatch starting just now (21.00) on BBC2 relates to the first submerged-target torpedo kill in history, 1945, RN. Back when we had a significant Navy, of course. :(

[Si Clik]

And of course no one else is interested:

Islamic Republic News Agency

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-239/0701054065182033.htm

Kommersant -Russia

http://www.kommersant.com/p-9803/r_530/British_Navy/

China View

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/05/content_5571058.htm

I am sure if we want petrol and raw materials all these guys will help us against the pirates, terrorists and anyone else who wants to take a pot shot at Uk flagged vessels - don't forget 95% of trade comes by sea.

:=

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Tim, these links may interest you:

The War on Terror - At Sea (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=44318.html)(ARRSE)

Navy to cut its fleet by half (ARRSE) (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=54880.html)


This from the MOD (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/UkChartsTheWayForIraqsEconomicFuture.htm)

The Royal Navy and Gulf operations (RN site) (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.4695)

Maritime Security Operations (RN site) (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5561)

And two stories from the Telegraph

Oil tanker boarded by pirates off Basra (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/17/wpir17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/17/ixworld.html)

Navy Chief seeks deal with Hoon (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/05/nhoon05.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/05/ixportal.html)

Try going on YouTube - and entering Iran Navy in the search box..

[Halfwayback]

Airborne Artist
I was serving in END when I flew ashore and watched the Argentines come ashore in S. Georgia with your father's relief, Nick Barker.

Luckily I am led to believe that the current status of the present END is more secure than that engraved on my Zippo lighter saying HMS ENDURANCE Final Commission.

HWB

[doubledolphins]

HMS Brilliant, an apology. Yes sorry of course you were there.

Lew Page, sounds like something that might be useful in the heads! My point is that the two 22s were fine down south, it was the 21s that suffered.The little pen picture posted now puts his Torygraph "comment" article in to total perspective. If you don't know what I am on about, sorry, I would not wish to give him any more publicity.

[pr00ne]

Melchett01,

I’ve been quiet because there’s nothing happening other than nonsensical pieces of defence reporting in the Torygraph, a rag that hardly has a good track record in recent defence stories.

MoD funding appears to be fine, it’s the fact that the MoD is so p*ss poor at managing projects and allocating funds that appears to be the problem.
The UK spends more on defence than any other nation on the planet other than the USA, forty eight billion dollars in 2005/6 so the fact that we have the 2nd largest defence budget on the planet, that the Chancellor allocated an additional 600 million to defence and 84 million to intelligence in the last pre-budget report leaves me with not much to say on defence funding.
HOW the MoD spends it’s money, now that is another matter.

If they do decide to reduce the readiness of 6 RN escorts for the rest of this financial year, so what? Iraq and Afghanistan is where the money should be spent.

Anyway, how is 6 escorts supposed to be “half the RN fleet?” Where do they get their figure of an RN fleet of 43 ships? In reality the fleet has 25 escorts, 2 carriers and 1 in reserve, a helicopter carrier, 2 Assault ships, 4 SSBNs, 9 SSNs, 8 MCMVs, 17 Patrol vessels, 6 Survey and hydrographic vessels and 18 RFAs?

I think the Torygraph needs s new maths correspondent let alone defence.

[Melchett01]

MoD funding appears to be fine....The UK spends more on defence than any other nation on the planet other than the USA

The actual amounts spent on the defence budget is largely irrelevant if it isn't enough to do the job we're being asked to do. We could spend $100 million, but if we need $120 million then funding isn't fine. And I don't think there is anyone with a grip on reality and the actual facts that could argue otherwise that what we are getting is enough to do what we are being asked to do.

If they do decide to reduce the readiness of 6 RN escorts for the rest of this financial year, so what? Iraq and Afghanistan is where the money should be spent

We're desperate for more rotary, more so in AF than IZ, but even the SH fleet is having its budgets butchered despite it needing the exact opposite. Do you really think that any cash generated from axing these escorts will make it to the front-line and JHC in particular? Well having just been told that we are slashing the budget in SH yet again, I somehow don't think so. And we both know that any reduction in RN capability will not be a temporary measure - we will never get those vessels, or the funding associated with them back.

The simple black and white fact is that defence needs more money. End of story. I agree that MOD couldn't organise a p1ss up in a brewery, but at the end of the day it is Gordon and Tony who set the govt priorities and decide how much the MOD gets. The buck stops with them.

[u8dmtm]

I haven't seen it posted here, but there is an active petition on the Number 10 website which readers may wish to sign, the text of which is:

" We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop the destruction of the Royal Navy and spend the defence budget more wisely. "

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/savethenavy/

Sorry if it has in fact already been posted here.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Where do you get your figures from 'Pr00ne'?

The military budget of the UK varies on internet sources from $47.4 billion (SIPRI) to $58.6 billion (official budget).

The military budget of PRC varies from $29.9 billion (official budget), through $42 - 51 billion (RAND Corp) to $90 billion (US DoD).

Interestingly Japan, a country with 'just' a self defence force and no nuclear capabilities is considered to have the 4th highest defence budget in the world.

[MarkD]

yes, but a billion goes a lot further in the PRC...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The proposal was/is for six out of 25 frigates and destroyers to be laid up in "extended readiness", so the Telegraph may have been better off saying a quarter.

Yesterday, HMS Montrose left for a deployment in the Med (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.7699). Last week, HMS Campbletown (one of the ships under threat) also left on deployment (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.7670), this time to the Middle East. Both of these deployments are part of the war on terror.

As for a situation that may need naval forces, what about this:

Things will happen in the Gulf in the next couple of years. The nuclear stand off my lead to an Israeli or US strike, Tehran may decide to hit back at the international community for imposing sanctions, or (as seems likely) Iran and Saudi Arabia will come to blows.

Shipping in the Gulf will need to be defended - which might be tricky with a Fleet considerably smaller than we need. Admiral West said we need "about thirty" frigates and destroyers. Have we got about thirty? No!

What if Tehran decides that seaborne resupply to forces in Iraq will cease? Having to defend convoys for a thousand miles, looking out for submarines, mines, shore based missiles, missile armed attack craft, aircraft (some with anti ship missiles).....

I seem to remember something similar during the Iran/Iraq war.

[Blacksheep]

I thought the purpose of our armed forces was to defend the United Kingdon, pure and simple, which is why I have to question what possible motives we have for maintaining a significant surface fleet.95% of our trade goes by sea. We cannot feed ourselves for we import more than half of our food.

There are just three sides to the defence of our island nation and it doesn't take a military genius to work them out; just simple common sense and a knowledge of history. Unfortunately, not only are there no military geniuses in the Treasury - who control the budget allocated to the Ministry of Defence - there also seems to be no-one with any common sense. Nor anyone in the MOD with the guts to stand up to the Chancellor.

1. What we need from our Royal Navy is the ability to ensure that our food supplies cannot be seriously disrputed. That requires at the very least, a navy equipped with the best possible anti-submarine capability.

2. What we need from our army is the ability to prevent any foreign soldier setting foot on UK soil. They willl need the active assistance of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in achieving this aim.

3. What we need from our Royal Air Force is the ability to prevent any foreign military aircraft entering UK airspace, or releasing a weapon from outside our airspace that can penetrate it.

The three services are interdependent and we no longer need to project military power outside our own direct sphere of interest as outlined above. Those three requirements are the very minimum that must be achieved. Anything less and we are no longer a sovereign nation.

... but perhaps that is what our unanimously pro-EU politicians really want?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

BLAIR'S BIG QUESTION (http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144125&command=displayContent&sourceNode=202384&home=yes&more_nodeId1=144663&contentPK=16396880)

And only last night shadow defence secretary Liam Fox attacked the Government's record, telling the WMN: "The Royal Navy believed they had escaped Labour's cuts in the Strategic Defence Review eight years ago. It's now clear that to finance their campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan the Government is looking to downsize the Navy, cutting our future capabilities and risking our ability to deal with new emerging threats.

"With the Sea Harriers already withdrawn, leaving a gap in our fleet protection and proposals on the table to reduce the number of vessels in the fleet, the Navy will have little left to defend British interests worldwide."

Good to see the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) mentioned - it goes without saying that less ships means there will be less surfaced based defence, increasing the chance of something disasterous happening.

On local news last night, it was mentioned that Blair made much of "the largest shipbuilding programme for decades" (sic), citing the Future Carriers (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116). Now if they had actually been ordered/passed main gate this would have been a valid point, but they haven't.....