Royal Navy ships arriving for the review of the fleet
on the 200th anniversay of the Battle of Trafalgar
Posted on 12/01/2007 7:58:47 PM PST by bruinbirdman
The Royal Navy can no longer fight a major war because of years of underfunding and cutbacks, a leaked Whitehall report has revealed.
With an "under-resourced" fleet composed of "ageing and operationally defective ships", the Navy would struggle even to repeat its role in the Iraq war and is now "far more vulnerable to unexpected shocks", the top-level Ministry of Defence document says.
The report was ordered by Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, who had intended to use it to "counter criticism" on the state of the Navy in the media and from opposition parties.
Royal Navy ships arriving for the review of the fleet
on the 200th anniversay of the Battle of Trafalgar
But in a damning conclusion, the report states: "The current material state of the fleet is not good; the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation in accordance with current policy against a technologically capable adversary." A medium-scale operation is similar to the naval involvement in the Iraq War.
The document adds that the Navy is too "thinly stretched", its fighting capability is being "eroded" and the fleet's ability to influence events at the strategic level is "under threat".
The document's findings come at a time of mounting pressure on the Prime Minister, who has been heavily criticised over claims that as Chancellor he failed to fund the military adequately.
Last night, Liam Fox, the shadow Tory defence secretary, said: "We have come all the way from Lord Nelson to a part-time defence secretary, with the consequence that the Royal Navy now finds itself in the most degenerated state in which it has ever been. Labour has done what none of this countries' enemies have been able to do: bring the Navy to its knees."
Two weeks ago, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, a former chief of the defence staff, argued that claims of increased spending were "smoke and mirrors", while reduced funds had left "blood on the floor" at the MoD.
Last year, Admiral Sir Alan West, a former head of the Navy who is now a government minister, gave warning that Britain would end up with a "tinpot" Navy if more money were not spent on defence. Two weeks ago, The Sunday Telegraph also revealed that General Sir Richard Dannatt had told the Government that it was "mortgaging" the goodwill of the Army.
The leaked report continues: "A combination of age and reduced spending on maintenance has resulted in today's ships carrying a far higher number of operational defects, which directly erode operational capacity."
The fleet, it states, is "thinly stretched", "increasingly taut" and facing "significant risks". Of the Navy's international reputation, once the envy of the world, the report states: "Our diluted worldwide presence inevitably makes it harder to maintain influence in key areas of interest across the globe and has thereby reduced the Royal Navy's overall strategic effect."
How the fleet compares 2007 - 1987
Entitled "Royal Navy Utility Today Compared with 20 Years Ago" and dated November 1 2007, the 14-page document was drawn up by Rear-Admiral Alan Massey, the assistant chief of the naval staff and one of the services' most influential officers.
He commanded the carrier Ark Royal, the Navy's flagship, during the Iraq War, for which he was made a CBE. A high-flier, Rear-Adm Massey is seen by many as the future head of the Senior Service.
Although the report says the newest ships in today's Navy are more capable than ever, it adds: "Other navies, including potential adversaries, have also increased their numbers and capabilities and this offsets many of our gains."
It continues: "Over the last 20 years the strategic situation has seen a shift from a relatively stable bipolar world to an era of more diverse security threats.
"Thus the reduction in the number of platforms [ships] now significantly fetters our ability to maintain previous levels of influence, deterrence, coercion and defence diplomacy in peacetime and times of tension."
The document recommends that the Navy Board, which comprises the services' most senior officers, should note that the Navy's "strategic effect has been adversely impacted" by a reduction in ship numbers over the past 20 years, from a fleet of 136 in 1987 to 75 today
The number of destroyers and frigates, the Navy's workhorses, has been reduced from 54 to 25 and the average age of those vessels is now 17 years old, compared with 10 and 12 years old in 1997 and 1987 respectively. The report also reveals that there has been a 66 per cent reduction in the number of submarines, from 38 to 13, and that the Navy's manpower has fallen from 66,500 sailors in 1987 to 38,860.
The report states: "The most striking difference is in the numbers of units operating in home waters. In 1987 there were 35 destroyers, frigates and submarines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships at sea around the UK, compared with only 10 in 2007."
It goes on: "In order to maintain delivery of effect [conduct operations] against a backdrop of decreasing resources, significant risk is being taken against certain areas. Our anti-submarine warfare capability is below a prudent minimum level of both quality and quantity."
One of the positive notes in the report concerns the future carrier programme, which, it states, will enhance the ability of the Navy to contribute to joint operations. The report says: "The introduction of CVF [carrier vessel future], coupled with the Joint Combat Aircraft, will mark a significant step forward for defence and will provide the UK with considerable global political military leverage.
"This capability therefore offers significant effectiveness and leverage at the political/diplomatic level, as well as providing the joint commander with highly effective air power without the potential difficulties of operating from bases on foreign soil."
An MoD spokesman said: "We don't comment on leaked documents. The Government values the Royal Navy greatly and has invested billions of pounds in new Type 45s [destroyers], Astute submarines and Trident submarines, and has made the decision to order two new aircraft carriers."
Key findings of Royal Navy report
• Funding shortfall is "eroding" Navy's fighting capability
• Fleet is "ageing" and ever more "thinly stretched"
• Anti-submarine capability is now below a "prudent minimum level"
• Royal Marines' ability to conduct amphibious operations is being "eroded"
• Too many ships are putting to sea with "operational defects"
• Navy's ability to "deliver influence at strategic level" is under threat
• Navy vulnerable to unexpected shocks compared with 20 years ago
• In 1987 35 ships patrolled UK waters, compared with just 10 today
• New aircraft carriers "provide significant global and military leverage"
• Navy's modern ships are more capable and cost-effective
On the plus side, however, gays get free run of the military and the newest destroyer is decked out like a cruise boat.
That’s it?! That is the ENTIRE Royal Navy?! WTF?! The Navy that once RULED THE WORLD is now smaller, I daresay, than most ASEAN countries fleets!! Unbelievable! Oh, well, at least they have (substandard—no dental plan) socialized medicine, huh?
The UK has been too busy with spending for Muzzies on the dole.
And I do not and have never believed the new carrier program will be completed as projected. If the RN can’t afford to run frigates it can’t afford carrier groups.
If Hillary gets in the White House, this can be the future of out military too.
Memo to Argentina: The Coast is Clear.
Current order of battle is one thing but far more important is what’s in the pipeline. Ships aren’t built overnight.
|
She should be in prison. I doubt she’ll get elected. obama and edwards are worse in their policies. This election is going to suck in my best guesstimation.
Yep. And they aren't even operating all three of the current carriers listed. INVINCIBLE is in ready mothballs.
Some British Freepers recently informed a few of us that Britain is building its military forces up more than adequately.
Besides, the UK has more tridents operational. If worse came to worst, she could use the Goliath option.
;-)
I suppose they do have some tactical nukes. Won't have to worry about an invasion.
The navy is a little larger than Canada's.
yitbos
I wonder how many ships they could build if they weren’t footing the welfare bill for certain ethnic communities to a tidy tune each year?
I believe the bottom line of the UK report is just as applicable to the US Navy and the US Armed Forces in general. Billary and Hillary did not hide their contempt for U.S. forces; they gutted the numbers and capabilties of the Armed Forces and Intel forces for some inexplicable reason.
Had they not eliminated so much of the Military’s capabilities, we would have been able to field a much more decisive effort against OBL while still maintaining the ability to contest two or more other sizable efforts elsewhere.
Nothing a little paint here and there can’t cover up, a little dent buffed out here and there on their remaining battered (formerly battle) ships. Oh and a couple on hot tubs and a steam bath for they gay sailors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.