Wow! Three misunderstandings from a single post.
Swampy
But he did. See
this interview with WarshipsIFR.
"I have been in the Navy for 40 years and in my time have fought in a fairly large maritime war - the Falklands - where, of 23 frigates and destroyers sent to the South Atlantic in the task force, four were sunk and eight were damaged. My own ship was sunk in Falkland Sound. It was a pretty high attrition rate. Therefore having only a dozen major surface warships available for an operation is indeed likely to be unrealistic. In fact, this country needs about 30 surface combatants to carry out standing tasks and handle contingencies like sending a task group to take part in a major operation. The reduction from 32 to 25 frigates and destroyers was only accepted with great reluctance. However, the package of money that the Royal Navy receives does not allow us to have 30 destroyers and frigates, especially as the future carrier, amphibious ships and other programmes are a high priority."
Or
here from the
Telegraph.
There were other times when Admiral West was candid - interestingly a Google search found the
Sea Jet thread - particularly the evidence to the Defence Select Commitee.
Navaleye
Yes I know, but is 25 escorts enough? Really capable OPVs could relieve some of the problems caused by too many tasks.
N_a_b
I apolegise for what was a throwaway line. Last year I saw a briefing by a COMATG Staff Officer, and worryingly CVF never got a mention. Sometimes it feels as if carrier aviation, amphibious forces and escorts are seen in isolation from each other. For example, cutting escort numbers increases the importance of the future carriers and the capabilities of the air groups. I feel that the media/public fail to understand this and this is what I meant.