Fearless Scrapped.

[ORAC]

HMS Fearless is to scrapped 9 months before her replacement is available in order to save £2 million. . .. .Let me see, that works out at about £250,000 a month. Isn't that the amount that Tony is going to be paying BA each month for Blair Force One?. . <a href="http://www.thetimescrossword.co.uk/article/0,,2-229283,00.html" target="_blank">The Times</a> . .. .March 08, 2002. .. .Navy's oldest warship steams off to scrapheap. .By Michael Evans, Defence Editor. . . . . . . .THE Royal Navy’s oldest warship, which was to be axed during a Conservative government defence review in 1981, but survived another 20 years in operational service, is finally being scrapped. . .Navy chiefs have decided against spending £2 million to refit HMS Fearless, an amphibious assault ship, to keep her going another nine months. One defence source said that the ship was so old that she was now regarded as a potential hazard to the 550 crew. . .. .Twice HMS Fearless has survived because no money was allocated to build a replacement. Having escaped in the early 1980s because of the intervention of the Falklands war, in which the warship played a distinguished role, HMS Fearless was supposed to have been decommissioned in 1990. Again, the ship was given a new lease of life. . .. .One of two amphibious assault vessels used by the Royal Marines on operations overseas, she has had millions of pounds spent on her to maintain the engines, and particularly the boilers, the only steam-driven system left in the Navy’s surface fleet. . .. .Old-style “stokers” had to be employed, and rumour has it in the Navy that whenever the ship returned to dock, there was only one man, long since retired and living in Portsmouth, who had the skill to nurture the boilers for the next deployment. Although Navy nuclear-powered submarines are steam-driven, all other surface warships are powered by gas-turbine or diesel-electric engines. . .. .HMS Fearless, launched in 1963 and commissioned in 1965, was down for decommissioning in November and it had been planned to spend the £2 million necessary to keep her afloat until then. However, after a review of expenditure, Navy chiefs decided that no more money should go on HMS Fearless, although her replacement, HMS Albion, which is undergoing sea trials, will not be in service until January. HMS Intrepid, sister ship to HMS Fearless, was decommissioned last year. . .. .Yesterday’s announcement comes after last week’s disclosure that the Navy’s carrier-borne Sea Harriers are to be withdrawn from service between 2004 and 2006, removing the main air defence capability from Britain’s three aircraft carriers. The carriers will be given an upgraded RAF Harrier GR9, a strike aircraft, until replaced by two new larger carriers in 2012. . .. .Bernard Jenkin, the Shadow Defence Secretary, reacting to the announcement about HMS Fearless, said: “This is yet another defence cut.” Scrapping the Sea Harriers, with the early decommissioning of HMS Fearless, in the middle of the War on Terror “looks like a defence review by stealth”, he said. . .. .However, the sources said that a full analysis of likely threats had led to the decision that there would be no requirement for a major amphibious operation, on the assumption that the Afghanistan campaign would continue for some time. They said, however, that should there be a sudden demand for a British amphibious capability, the Navy would rely on HMS Ocean, a new helicopter carrier, and the command and control systems on board Type 42 destroyers. . .. .HMS Fearless not only has the capability of launching Royal Marines and their vehicles from heavyweight landing craft, but she also has a sophisticated command and control set-up. HMS Ocean has only small landing craft on board. . .. .HMS Fearless is due to return to Portsmouth on March 18 after a seven-month deployment in the Gulf where she has been part of the Royal Navy task force assigned to Operation Veritas, Britain’s contribution to the War on Terror in Afghanistan. HMS Albion and her sister ship, HMS Bulwark, due in service in November next year, will have crews of 320, instead of 550, and be cheaper to run.

[Admin Guru]

It concerns me that with the US increasing their defence budget to 34 billion, and the Chinese increasing defence spending by at least 17 percent, we are decomissioning squadrons and scrapping warships. I'm not sure where the Government is concentrating its efforts, but it appears quite clear to me that we are potentially on the brink of a large conflict and these budgetary cuts will not help issues.

[Archimedes]

AG,. .forgive me for seeming pedantic - I think the US have raised their budget by $43 Billion rather than raised it to that figure. This strengthens your point, of course.

[ORAC]

AG, that's $48 billion - not $35 billion. And it's not their total budget but the INCREASE in their annual defence budget post 9/11 (about a 15% rise). The total US defense budget by 2003 will be $396 billion.. .. . <a href="http://inthesetimes.com/issue/26/08/news1.shtml" target="_blank">In These Times</a>. . . . <small>[ 08 March 2002, 17:52: Message edited by: ORAC ]</small>

[Scud-U-Like]

Perhaps the old geezer from Portsmouth has finally gone to that great boiler house in the sky!

[jockspice]

A very sad day. For all of her faults, the D will be sadly missed. It was going too happen, but this is another premature action.. .Lets hope we dont need to go anywhere that needs a dedicated amphib C2 ship until Albion is ready, or anywhere where we need organic air defence until JSF/Type 45 has arrived. Chances of that happening? Zero to sod all! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 08 March 2002, 18:02: Message edited by: jockspice ]</small>

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jock, know how can get extra swimming lessons?

I might need them, with the demise of the Sea Harrier.

[Big Green Arrow]

She's had her time..good riddance..hope they can turn her into some sort of floating museum....wait....she's that already! Should be a good party then...keep us posted!

[Toddington Ted]

Although its some 16 years since I changed from dark blue to light blue, I do remember some apocryphal story regarding Fearless' seaworthiness even then. I believe she was weakened by heavy seas many years ago, but I could not substantiate this. I never served time in her as, for WAFUs in my day, the BRNC Minesweeper was my only taste of the oggin. It reinforced my view to try and stay in the air!

[Mycroft]

I know the 'steam man' - he owns a video production company (not avaition!). Before he left the navy were desperate to hold onto him, training him in video production (apart from the ships he also looked after a steam lorry) and even giving him a wren assistant - who he still has. In fact after decommisioning the ship will not be scrapped immediately, and for the next nine months will be more available for duty than if it had gone for a £2 mil refit and after such a refit the Albion would probably enter service first.

[Talking Radalt]

Just one other point:. .Straight out of the Oxford English Dictionary,. .. .FEARLESS(adj): Lacking or devoid of fear; brave.. .. .ALBION does not appear. Closest I could get was. .. .ALBINO(noun/adj): (person or thing) lacking in colour . .. .Says it all really.

[ORAC]

The trouble with the name "Albion" is that she's bound to be called "Perfidious" instead.

[cobaltfrog]

I have to say that the crew made the D bearable. It will be a shame to see it go although we are going to be left with a C2 void as jockspice says! Maybe we could use Bowman.....OR B!

[Muff Coupling]

Also hear that Illustrious has been sold to the Indian Navy?. .. .Plans are to anchor her off of Calcutta as a fly through take away Balti House, for crews en-route to Kabul. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the telegraph....

MoD 'forced to make cuts'

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent(Filed: 22/03/2002)

THE MoD has been forced by a Treasury squeeze into making a series of cuts and borrowing hundreds of millions of pounds from next year's budget to stave off more trimming. Officials claimed that "slipping bills into next year's budget is just a routine end of year accounting mechanism" but defence sources spoke of cuts across the board as the MoD tried to keep within its budget. An MoD briefing paper obtained by The Telegraph made clear that Government assurances that military operations would be funded in full by the Treasury were misleading.

Matching the defence programme to "the range of operational tasks placed on the MoD and the Armed Forces" remained "a very significant challenge", it said.

Questioned about the budget cuts, one defence source said: "We are overspent and overspending, need more money and are having a battle royal with the Treasury.

We have overspent on Afghanistan and everything before. If we do not win the argument, which is entering a critical phase, we will have to have drastic and terrible cuts and restrictions."

While other Government departments have received average increases of 3.8 per cent above inflation over the past two years, the MoD received 0.3 per cent while at the same time having to fund a series of operations abroad.

Operations in Sierra Leone, across the Balkans and in Afghanistan - many of them touted by Mr Blair as part of his attempts to project Britain's military as a "force for good" - have been underfunded by the Treasury, analysts said.

Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis journal, said: "The MoD will put in a bill for, say, £100 million for the costs of mounting the operation and the Treasury goes through it saying, 'Well, we are not going to pay for that, or for that, or for that' until it is pared down to a fraction of what it was."

As a direct result of underfunding, there have been a series of surreptitious defence cuts in recent months.

Earlier this week, Fearless, the Royal Navy's only landing platform, which would play a vital role in any amphibious landing, was retired eight months before its replacement came into service, at a saving of £15 million.

Last week, Lewis Moonie, Defence Minister, announced that the number of MRA4 Nimrod maritime surveillance aircraft due for introduction in 2005 was being cut from 21 to 18, with a saving put conservatively at more than £500 million.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Also from the Telegraph

Cuts 'leave Navy unfit to fight'
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 11/06/2001)

TREASURY cuts have left the Royal Navy incapable of meeting its Nato commitments or even defending its own ships, says a document leaked to The Telegraph.

The document, believed to have been written by the Navy's most senior officer, says the cuts mean that the Navy cannot play its role in Nato's joint rapid reaction force "because ships are not always fully fit for task". It says that "significant armoury shortfalls" have forced ships to go to sea without enough ammunition to defend themselves if they have to go into action.

Ships are also running a greater risk of being hit by an air-to-sea missile in a repetition of the destruction of the Sheffield, which was hit by an Exocet in the Falklands.

The leaked document, the Fleet Risk Register, was issued by the Commander-in-Chief Fleet last November, when the post was held by Adml Sir Nigel Essenhigh, now First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff. The Ministry of Defence said that the paper was compiled by a subordinate, but it is written in the first person and refers at one point to "my command".

One of the major concerns it expresses is about a crisis in the Fleet's helicopter operation. The new Mercury anti-submarine helicopter cannot use its sonar at night or in low visibility when the pilot is flying on instruments alone.

Serious problems with the 29 Lynx helicopters based on board destroyers and frigates meant that only 12 were operational, the document says. "Ships without flights for three months-plus show a serious degradation of aviation operational capability."

The Sea King helicopter, which will not be replaced until 2009, does not have sufficient lift or range, while the Army has been forced by cuts to renege on an agreement to supply eight Apache attack helicopters to support the Royal Marines.

Another serious risk underlined by the document is that there will not be enough pilots to fly the aircraft for one of the two carriers due to join the Navy as the central pillar of the Government's 1998 Strategic Defence Review. "Pilot numbers are well below requirement, with premature voluntary retirement rising critically," it says.

Difficulties in recruiting and retaining key staff are having "a very serious impact on the ability of many ships to sustain their readiness and operational capability through a protracted or high intensity operation". The cuts are also affecting the Navy's ability to train its personnel properly.

The document says that the effectiveness of the Royal Marines has been particularly badly hit because they cannot use most of their ammunition in training without ministerial permission. They also have problems with helicopters. "A significant proportion of landing force munitions lack safety clearances unless ministerial dispensation is granted for operations. This produces a severe impact on operational readiness."

The document says that the Defence Logistics Organisation, which provides spares and equipment to all the Armed Forces, is coming under great financial pressure. This "translates into operational risk in front line", it says. "There is a failure to meet spares demand to support activity across all type commands, impacting Fleet ability to meet tasking. Their ability to support submarines at Faslane is also a concern."

The document says that recent trouble with nuclear reactors that led to the withdrawal of the Trafalgar submarines was one of many problems affecting the submarine fleet. "There is an increasing number of factors giving major cause for concern over submarine availability. There are serious limitations in underwater capability, including sensors, weapons and self-protection."

The revelations of the damage caused to the Navy's operational capability follow a series of leaks on cuts affecting the two other Services.

Last September The Telegraph reported that the RAF had been told that it would have to axe three frontline squadrons, scrapping all its Jaguar fighter-bombers to save £1.5 billion. That measure was successfully fought off. The pressure then switched to the Army, with leaked documents showing that up to 10 front-line regiments could be axed and orders for £1.2 bn worth of equipment cancelled.

A senior defence source said yesterday: "The Government is posturing behind the Strategic Defence Review as evidence that it is tough on defence. But it is simply not prepared to pay the money needed to implement it." That belief, which is widespread in the Armed Forces, led the influential Royal United Services Institute to predict last month that the two new aircraft carriers would never be built.

Iain Duncan Smith, the shadow defence secretary, said the document was "final proof that the Government is damaging our Armed Forces. They are simply failing to give them the resources they need and they are in grave danger of being unable to defend themselves." The MoD said it deplored the leaking of the document and was not prepared to comment on its contents.

And this was BEFORE the SHAR decision.....

[Muff Coupling]

Just a couple of thoughts on the press posts.. .Someone (MOD) is being a bit frugal with the truth me thinks... .. .1. The Army has not "reneged" on a so called deal to support the RM with Apache. The RM were never going to be directly supported! AH in the Maritime CONOPS is purely that,a concept,to amortise the role of 847 once the AH7 and Gaz fall off their respective perches. Regardless of the aspiration, the WAH 64D is not marinised, has a high CofG (excacerbated by the Mast mounted radar)and therefore will not take kindly to rolling decks. Now you see why the USMC went for Z Cobra!Munition storage is a serious issue, ask the GR7 boys who cannot take their own kit on board. AH and GR7 are mainly attack and CAS. FRS 2 is geared for Fleet ADF.Different roles = different weapons requirements. Which goons thought, JF 2000 was going to work proprly then? Oh, it doesnt!...GR9 for both services then...and we have a Defence costs problem. Surprised..hardly.. .. .2. So the Cdo Bde has serious "defects in training due to ammunition restrictions", really! Lets pack them off to the Hindu Kush then, as usual the boys will produce the goods.. .. .3. Proposals to cut up to 10 front line Army units. Well, the bean stealers have surpassed themselves on that one. But you can see the logic. 8500 under strength, 23000 joined in 01 but 17300 left in the same year, 6 -10% PVR rate. Current Inf Bn strength about 300 -450 (if your lucky)..remove a load of units from the Order of Battle..shortfall, recruiting and PVR problem resolved in one foul swoop. Bloody marvelous.. What about, current / future ops..NI (who says it will not kick off again, FRY (just waiting for US and NATO to overstretch, and then have another round of ethic cleansing), Zimbabwe (White farmer / expat rescue operation..highly bloody likely), Isreal (middle East damage limitation operations with referee action between IDF and PLO..probably), UN (Sierra Leone, plus the usual raft of of other potential trouble spots.. .. .4. The Navy Lynx fleet in trouble..funny old thing that. Sea Kings past their sell buy date, Loads of Merlins (and AH) in storage and parked up at a cost even NCP would blush at! Is Wastelands involved here somewhere..thought so!. .. .If you want save some money..ditch that 5* resturant and air conditioned residential home called Abbey Wood..Contracts, theres a contradiction in terms..that place is only succeeeding in contracting the defence budget! . .. .Bin the DLO, give logistics and procurement back to the respective services and therefore those who understand what military equipment and a supply chain is!. .. .Pay cut 2000...smoke and mirrors to save £M off the forces wages bill.. we still have toilet cleaners earning more than "highly skilled and trained" soldiers, sailors and airmen. (Pay peanuts get...)Is the Civil Service on Pay 2000 earning terms..NO! theres a surprise then!!. .. .Start buying US kit..you know it makes sense. Wastelands and Waste of Space have ripped us off for to long. Argue all you want, Eurofighter / Typhoon 2 is a total travesty of taxpayers money.. .SABR, SAMR, ASTOR, MR4 and A400 are all lining up to join the ranks of delayed and overspend programmes. No wonder we are in rag order!. .. .Worth remembering, NO Labour government has ever increased Defence spending in real terms..recall the Chinook debacle..Labour cancelled the original order in the 70s at a huge cancellation fee. The aircraft were built anyway and just stored in the desert until the requirement for them became so critical some years later, and Boeing Vertol (as it was then) supplied the originals to the UK at the current market price and a huge profit to boot!! Bloody cracking defence policy and procurement that!!. .. .Sorry guys (and Gals)...soap box away.. I feel a pint coming on!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Muff Coupling

I agree with you. When the SDR was announced I could see that the idea of what was then called "Joint Force 2000" would never work.....and that the Royal Navy would be the net losers.

See the SHAR thread

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jenkin: Defence commitments should be matched by capabilities

Speech to Conservative Spring Forum 2002

Recently I attended the Annual Dinner of the Armed Forces Parliamentary scheme – a scheme, which aims give MPs first hand experience of the armed forces. They put us in battle fatigues and take us out on exercise.

The Prime Minister graced the dinner with his imperial presence. Surprised to see me, he asked: ‘What are you doing here?’

I said, “Prime Minister, I want to learn about the armed forces. Soon I’ll know more than your Secretary of State.”

The Prime Minister put me down with a quip. ‘That’s not difficult!’

Think about that! That is a measure of the Prime Minister’s real confidence in the man responsible for the lives of our servicemen.

Under this Government, Britain is now committed to a series of open-ended deployments, putting further pressure on our already stretched armed forces. Mr Blair has been dotting them around the globe wherever it makes him feel good. We should not devalue the gold standard of our armed forces in this way.

Labour wants our Armed Forces to be a ‘force for good’, yet they have little understanding of what it takes to maintain the quality and readiness of the best armed forces in the world.

We should be making sure our commitments are matched by our capabilities – it is government’s responsibility to square that circle. You only get what you pay for. Over-committing our forces not only tries the patience of the armed services and their families. It erodes their essential fighting capability.

And look what they are doing to the front line. Britain’s defences are paying an increasingly intolerable price.

Incredibly, since British troops were first deployed to Afghanistan, Labour has announced a whole series of cuts.

· An entire Tornado air defence squadron – axed. The very same squadron put on standby after 11th September to defend the skies over London.

· The Royal Navy’s ENTIRE force of Sea Harriers– axed. These are same Harriers played a key part in winning back the Falklands. Until a few days ago, they were due to remain in service until 2015. This leaves the Navy with no airborne air defence.

· The axe is falling on Royal Navy ships.
HMS Fearless - withdrawn a year early:
HMS Sheffield – mothballed:
HMS Monmouth – stuck in dock because there is no money for her maintenance programme.

The army is 7,500 men short – but there is a new Labour solution to that; simply reduce the target size of the Army, so we need fewer men to meet that target – and that’s what they have done!

This week, the government announced that Britain is to send 1,700 Royal Marine Commandos to Afghanistan to fight in the war against terrorism. Let there be no doubt that we support the principle of this deployment. This is a very grave responsibility: our forces are the best – they deserve better leadership than this Labour Government.

Just look what Labour tried to do. They tried to make the announcement of the largest single deployment for combat operations since the Gulf War as though it was just routine.

Considering that this is arguably the most dangerous mission that our forces have taken on for 20 years, it is unbelievable that the Government should fail to offer Parliament the right to debate it fully.

That was not just a snub to Parliament, or even just a snub to the people Parliament represents. As Michael Portillo said during the debate:
‘when our soldiers are being put into such extreme danger, it is a grave discourtesy to them to suggest that the sacrifice that they offer the nation is not worth three hours of debate in Government time’ (Hansard 20 March 2002 Col 352)


4-5 Commando Royal Marines are undoubtedly some of the finest troops that anyone will find on this earth. They are trained in mountain warfare. They are ideally fitted to this task. And they know they must defeat our enemies—those who threaten our own people in our own country and the peoples of our friends and allies.

But it is not disloyal or unpatriotic for Parliament to require explanation. That is Parliament’s job – but we had to drag Defence Ministers to the House of Commons to answer concerns expressed from all sides of the House. And the Prime Minister was too busy fighting his own backbenchers about foxhunting, to turn up to a debate about committing to troops to action.

This episode says everything about Mr Blair’s real sense of priorities.

Iain Duncan Smith set his clear priority for defence last week. His paper, called A Race Against Time, explains how ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are proliferating, and destabilising western security. He sets out why and how Britain must confront the growing missile threat. Few politicians in Europe understand the link between 11th September and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. This is why Britain should support the missile defence systems President Bush is offering Europe.

Instead of helping to galvanise other Governments in Europe to face up to the new threats and instabilities of the post cold war world, the Government’s post 11th September consultation paper on defence does not even mention the word ‘missile’! Labour continues to run scared from its CND MPs and activists.

This weekend Mr Hoon is in Spain at a meeting of EU defence ministers. What is his priority? He’s gone back to the EU’s defence agenda. Labour promised there was no such thing as a Euro Army. But this week the Spanish defence minister actually said:

‘We have formed, we are forming that European Army.’

Having championed the EU Defence Policy, they have lost control of the agenda. Too late will they realise that this EU Army is already dividing Europe from America. The Euro Army is a dagger pointing at the heart of NATO.

This debate, and the other debates we are hearing this weekend, underline that Labour is no longer fit for government. But we Conservatives have no automatic right to govern. We have to earn that right. Moreover, it is not our right, but our duty to ensure that we are not just ready for government at the next election, but that the British people really feel they have choice about where to put their vote.

We are the Party of choice. Together we must offer that choice.

Hon Bernard Jenkin MP
23/03/2002