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. Last week, HMS
Campbletown (one of the ships under threat) also left on
deployment, 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.