RN Fleet to be Cut by Half
 

Torygraph: 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.

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 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.:{

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?

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!

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!

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?

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*:)

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.

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

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

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

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!;)

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 ....

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.....

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