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
What will the UK do, unlock those bicycle locks on those nukes and nuke themselves?
Would they ever be willing to use them?
“Memo to Argentina: The Coast is Clear.”
That’s what they thought the first time. The withdrawal of HMS Endurance from the south atlantic as part of a round of defence cuts in 1981 was taken by the Argetinians as a sign that the Thatcher government was not serious about defending the islands.
Not a chance. Argentina has not got the capabilities to launch an invasion of the Falklands. Their fleet had no answer to hunter killer SSNs and still don’t. The Falklands is garrisoned. The Argentines would have a hell of a time trying to take Mount Pleasant Airfield.
As I observe all of the goings on in Britainistan from across the pond I wonder who it will be that you call on in your next hour of need. Poor Winston must be turning in his grave. Rampant Socialism, the demise of the Royal Navy and this apparent suicide by a thousand cuts. You appear “small” to the rest of the world and in retreat. The UK has served up it’s masculinity to the eunuchs of the EU. I’m so sorry that the once mighty UK is in such a decline.
And Britain is the road map for the future of the USA
That's been the cycle ever since the Ark Royal was commissioned. The Royal Navy keeps two active and the third in overhaul or laid up.
If you think that the Royal Navy has weakened,the Argentine military has shrunk even more in capability.
The problem really are the Tridents-if you want to fund your burgeoning welfare system & still want a nuke deterrent(a totally sub-based one at that),the rest of the military will feel the pinch.
What’s your take on shifting from a purely SLBM based nuke deterrent to something more flexible like air launched/cruise missile weapons which can deployed from a variety of platforms???
Would it help save funds for other projects???
It was a poor example. But the point is to illustrate how far “Great” Britain has sunk.....so to speak.
For example: There was a time when the English school teacher in Sudan would have provoked a vast response from Britain, backed up by a fleet, along the lines of Teddy Roosevelt’s “Pendergrass alive or Raisuli Dead!”
Although highly expensive the UKs SLBM deterrent is the only option really. It provides that strategic to tactical nuke option {dial a yield) all from one platform.
Sure it does-but the question is that platform will rarely,if ever be used & it’s (atleast officially) not used for anything else.I was thinking more along the lines of deploying cruise misiles on the Astutes & aircraft along with a stock of air-launch bombs.Those platforms won’t be invulnerable,but the costs should be far lower.
What do you mean “Could be?” We’ve already suffered 8 years of Clinton version 1.0. If I recall the numbers correctly, we had a 600 ship navy at the end of Reagan’s presidency! According to Wikipedia (quickest place I could look) we now have 280 ships!
“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.
-
Who controlled congress from 94 to 2000
Who does the Constitution give the power to raise and maintain etc etc”
—
I hear you, but I wonder when the Klintonistas made their moves on the US Armed Forces. The Pubbies took control of Congress in 94; the schlickmeister and the scuz came into power Jan 20, 1993 with a powerful hatred of all things Republican, all things heterosexual and all things military.
We in Great Britain take great pride in our forces, and their capabilities to defend the nation in times of crisis. They will continue to do so, with the RN moving from an anti-submarine force into an assault/projection fleet. Some of the reductions in the fleet are down to defence cuts, which i disagree with. Even if some of these ageing vessels are getting beyond global travelling and patrolling, they still have a role to play in our domestic waters. Crew them with newbies, give them valuable experience, and move them into a type 45 when the time comes.
We are, on the other hand, bringing some impressive hardwear back to the fleet.
6 new ADD: Type 45
Astute Class submarines
Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers (you can bet these will be built!)
A case in point with the reduction of some of the patrol fleet comes with the old Castle Class being scrapped, with a brand new class of vessel, the River Class to take its place. These new vessels can operate for much longer than the old ships, and are an example of fewer, more capable ships, taking over from more numerous, but less effective units.
“UK RISKS BEING OVERTAKEN BY NEARLY ALL DEVELOPED WORLD COUNTRIES IN TERMS OF ITS NAVAL FORCES”
Almost 6-years of not adequately replenished “War On Terror” commitments & equipment losses, along with recent naval-programme cuts have left the Royal Navy virtually without an air-arm, & without known-to-be-effective defenses against 21st-century anti-ship weapons likely to be encountered in theatres such as the Persian Gulf, or the South Atlantic.
These include the Russian SS-N-27 “Sizzler” supersonic cruise missile:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akO7Y_ORw538&refer=home
http://www.uscpf.org/html/events/2005/transcript.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
UK “war on terror” (W.O.T.) activities in Afghanistan & Iraq have resulted in the deployment there of so many aircraft normally assigned to the RN’s 2 remaining ‘pocket’ aircraft carriers, that these vital ships are having to operate without their Harriers:
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/british_35707___article.html/american_ship.html
In September-2007, HMS Ocean- the RN’s, only dedicated helicopter carrier- was taken out-of-service for over 1 year for un-planned repairs:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/HmsOceanInLineForMajorRefit.htm
Instead of putting £4 Billion toward the design/construction of 2 new “big deck” aircraft carriers- as part of a misguided UK/French project- the UK ought to ‘call-in a favor’ from ‘our best friends’, the USA, & ask for the lend/lease of 2 of their recently produced/nearing commissioning medium-sized “LHD Class” aircraft carriers, along with their armaments, aircraft & related logistical equipment:
- USS Makin Island (LHD 8) (nearing commissioning);
- USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001;
These ships:
- weigh-in at about double the tonnage of the RN’s 2.5 decade-old, past-service-life Invincible Class carriers;
- deploy the same types of fixed-wing aircraft as RN carriers, but have 2X the aircraft carrying & sortie capacity;
- have far more versatile capabilities; &
- are out fitted with very recent technology radars & anti-missile/anti-submarine warfare systems.
… and would be far more appropriate for deployment to the Persian Gulf next year instead of (as is planned) the highly vulnerable-to-21st-century-anti-ship-weapons HMS Illustrious.
The lend/lease of several of the US Navy’s most up-to-date Destroyers to act as escorts for two of their lend/leased-to-the-UK ‘medium-sized’ LHA aircraft carriers- would enable competent anti-air-threat-protection for these carriers, a service not provide-able by the RN’s dangerously out-of-date Type-42 Destroyers.
All of the Royal Navy’s main (surface) escort ships, IE its 25-year-old Destroyers & even its ‘newest’ Frigates possess alarmingly out of date anti-air defense systems, with technologies that are not adequate for countering known 21st century anti-ship threats, such as the SS-N-27.
With funds saved from the USA lend/leasing the UK 2 of its medium sized aircraft carriers, the UK could expedite the approval-for-construction of ALL of the urgently needed (12) newly designed, leading-edge-technology Type-45 Destroyers-> that were committed to by the Labour govt in the late 1990’s (intended to replace the RN’s 25-year-old Type-42’s:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type45.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type42.htm
Type-45 Destroyers- EQUIPPED AS PER DESIGNERS’ SPECIFICATIONS- are purportedly the only ships world-wide that are capable of defending against the SS-N-27:
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jni/jni060207_1_n.shtml
To be effective, all Type-45’s would need to be commissioned EQUIPPED AS PER DESIGNERS’ SPECIFICATIONS, instead of being commissioned as STRIPPED DOWN VERSIONS- as the Labour govt has recently directed for ALL of the 3 or 4 Type-45’s that ‘may’ be constructed*.
(* 6 are ‘committed’ to, as of November-2007, but, 2 of these are apparently ‘to-be-sold’ to Saudi Arabia.)
IE: no Sonar (read: no anti-submarine capabilities); no on-ship torpedo-launch abilities; no up-to-date “Close In Weapons Systems” (CIWS’s) required for defending against anti-ship cruise missiles, fast-attack suicide boats & low-aircraft, etc.
Instead, 25-year-old technology CIWS’s are being installed.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type45.htm :
Additionally, instead of continuing with the ill-advised UK/French aircraft carrier venture - the UK should invite itself to be part of the USA’s ongoing project designing (& then building) the LHD Class’s successor: the “LHA-6 Class” medium sized aircraft carrier.
Projected to displace 51,000- 60,000 tonnes, LHA-6’s will be leaders of their type, regarding:
- offensive capacities;
- anti-missile & anti-submarine defenses;
- their abilities to set aside sections to function as hospital ships; &
- their abilities to function as battle-space data command centre’s.
LHA-6’s conceivably may be NUCLEAR-POWERED, necessary for running high-energy-use equipment, such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEW’s).
DEW’s are thought by many experts to be the only weapon likely to be able to counter the SS-N-27 “Sizzler”.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usa-broadening-conservation-focus-to-weapons-systems-02186/#more
The Royal Navy ought to be able to be more than moral support to the USA in 21st century conflicts.
Without an expedited- if not immediate- replacement of its outdated, vulnerable aircraft carriers & Destroyers- not to mention its ‘Paleolithic’ supply and mine-sweeper ships- the UK is asking for disaster if it has to or chooses to intervene or participate in conflicts in which its adversaries possess up-to-date naval weaponry.
_____________________________________
______________________________________
Solutions?? “US/UK NAVAL PROJECTS CALLED FOR”
The recent go-ahead for over £4 billion to be spent on the design/build of 2 “big deck” aircraft carriers- & having these co-built in cooperation with France- a country that does not have expertise in this field- rather than having these vital ships co-built with a country which has unquestioned leadership in aircraft carrier technologies- the USA- is plainly ill-advised & will result in, comparatively, 3rd-rate carriers with:
- 20-year-old technologies; severe deficiencies in versatility & upgrade-ability; &
- not capable of operating Directed Energy Weapons (DEW’s) for use against known-today threats- such as the Russian “Sizzler” SS-N-27 super-sonic anti-ship cruise missile.
Even worse, unlike the UK versions, France’s new “big deck” aircraft carriers will be constructed with catapult-launch-of-aircraft capability, from a “flat deck”.
French versions won’t rely on ski-jump decks to launch aircraft like the UK’s planned (& its present ‘pocket’) carriers.
Compared to the UK’s, France’s new carriers will be:
- far more capable;
- able to deploy a much broader variety of aircraft, such as electronic countermeasure (ECM) & unmanned fighter aircraft
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cv-ucavs-the-return-of-ucas-03557/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ea18g-program-the-usas-electronic-growler-02427/#more ;
- & in a business where ‘size does matter’... 10,000 tonnes heavier than the UK’s (65k vs 75k).
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-steaming-ahead-on-pa2cvf-carrier-project-01621/
As proposed in the above comment, instead of continuing with the ill-advised UK/French aircraft carrier project, the UK ought to call-in a favor from the USA & invite itself to be part of the project designing & building the LHD Class’s successor: the “LHA-6 Class”.
info: http://acquisition.navy.mil/programs/ships/lha_6
LHA-6’s are to be built & commissioned for the US Navy by 2011- a full 4.5 years earlier than the planned UK/French carrier project’s first ships ‘may’ be delivered... & MAY BE NUCLEAR POWERED, to accommodate high energy need equipment, such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEW’s).
DEW’s are thought by experts to be the only type of ship-defense weapon likely to be able to counter 21st century naval threats like the comparatively widely deployed Russian SS-N-27 supersonic anti-ship missile.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usa-broadening-conservation-focus-to-weapons-systems-02186/#more
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akO7Y_ORw538&refer=home
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
http://www.uscpf.org/html/events/2005/transcript.html
An LHD/LHA-6 approach would restore & significantly enhance the RN’s capacities long before HMS Ocean is repaired; years before UK ‘W.O.T.’ commitments end; & as much as a decade ahead of the misguided UK/French carrier project’s 1st ships.. at 1/2 to 3/5 the cost...
UK/French projects are not all inadvisable... but if this type of approach is going to result in technologically deficient, inferior products- compared to easily facilitatable alternatives- particularly in an area that directly affects national security, questions need to be asked why is it being used!!
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
“UK RISKS BEING OVERTAKEN BY NEARLY ALL DEVELOPED WORLD COUNTRIES IN TERMS OF ITS NAVAL FORCES” CONTINUED...
The premature decommissioning of nearly 1/4 of the RN’s Type 42 Destroyers in the late 1990’s, along with- in 2003- the sale to Chile of 3 Type-23 Frigates, has left the Royal Navy with less (surface) escort ships in 2007, than the French Navy- a condition that has not existed since the 1600’s.
One of the Type 23’s sold to Chile- HMS Grafton- was for 60% less than it cost to build her!!
Is this evidence of a govt that is serious about defense or the UK’s place and duties in the world??
Although most are considerably newer than the RN’s technologically out-of-date Type-42 Destroyers, the remaining Type-23 Frigates (along with their older sisters- Type-22 Frigate’s) will, in a measurably-soon time-frame, need to be replaced as a matter of basic Mod function.
During Labour’s 10-years in govt, only the most cursory planning has been carried out for this vital task. No ‘Frigate replacement’ designs (MVD’s) have been agreed on.
So what should be done??
Use the Type-45 as a template for the Type-23 & 22 Frigate replacements, but differentiate with ‘class 1’ being specialized for anti-submarine warfare; & ‘class 2’ being specialized for ‘land attack’ & expeditionary unit support purposes.
The French are designating several of their newest Destroyers
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon2/
as ‘land attack’ models- equipping them with cruise missile launchers (Sylver 70’s) which are effectively a ’big’ version of the anti-air missile launchers (Sylver-50’s) used on the RN’s new Type-45’s.
Unless things change, the UK risks being overtaken by nearly all developed world countries in terms of its naval forces.
The UK’s new classes of Destroyer’s, MVD’s, and aircraft carriers could truly lead the world’s navies in terms of quality and capabilities (for their type and displacement sizes)...
… but without significant effort to change mindsets in the current govt & possibly the MoD, countries like South Korea will “cut the UK’s grass” to use a North American expression... and consequently take the trade related benefits...
Shouldn’t an objective of the UK govt be to ensure that its newest naval ships appear better than other countries that are building comparable classes of ships (Destroyers/Frigates)?
South Korea, Germany, France, Italy (& many others) all are undergoing major design/ build programmes of these classes of ships. How will the UK appear if its newest “ships of the line”, when commissioned, are half-equipped? ...with their most needed, vital-for-duty equipment not installed??
How does the (1/2 equipped as is now intended, or fully equipped) Type 45 compare to South Korea’s newest Destroyer variant the KDX III?
Type 45:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type45.htm
South Korea:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/drs-wins-multiplexing-contract-for-korean-aegis-destroyers-0431/ or
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/kdx-3.htm
Germany:
Their ‘reply’ to the Type-45:
http://www.deagel.com/Frigates/F124-Sachsen_a000440001.aspx
France/Italy:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon2/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fremm/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/francoitalian-fremm-multirole-frigate-project-formalized-01513/
The UK’s Royal Navy is being negligently mis-managed and incompetently overseen by the current govt.
There is no reason why the RN can not lead the world in terms of the capabilities and technologies of its ships and equipment, as well as the skills & professionalism of its sailors.
If the UK is putting its newest, best & most bragged about warships to sea ½ equipped (Type-45 Destroyers), will this not make the UK a laughing stalk among major-power nations, as well as damaging potential trade relationships with countries looking to buy defense goods?
If the UK partners with another nation- France- in the design & building of major defense equipment, in this case aircraft carriers, and the UK’s version of these ships is very noticeably & significantly inferior and less capable than France’s version- won’t this damage the UK’s international profile??
Won’t this be counterproductive to the UK’s international profile in terms of its technological and manufacturing capacities?
If newly produced ships- and even planned new ones, such as the recently approved aircraft carriers- or MVD’s (Type-22 & Type-23 Frigate replacements) are being commissioned (or planned to-be-commissioned) without vital hardware and equipment that their designers intended for them to be out fitted with-> what sort of message does this send to those the UK wants to trade with, or countries that the UK may have to be militarily adverse to, down the road????
In early 1997 the US Department of Defense offered up to four US Navy Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) class frigates as “optional extras” (as lend/lease) to permit the early withdrawal of the oldest Batch 1 Type 42 destroyers from the UK Royal Navy service.
This offer was not taken up by the UK, but it implies that the US agreeing to lend/lease LHD 7 and 8 and/or LHA-6’s are reasonable future objectives for the UK govt.
Due to its comparatively enormous cost and the project’s huge capacity to ‘distract’ the average voter, the UK/French aircraft carrier project will likely end up functioning as a false excuse for the UK govt to:
- decommission and/or sell-off-prematurely what remains of the RN’s fleets…
- not replace existing classes of Frigates/Destroyers/support ships and the like; &
Rather than allowing the unopposed continuation of the highly contrary-to-logic UK/French aircraft carrier project- the Conservative party ought to evaluate where there could be more UK/USA naval projects… particularly in areas that include aircraft carriers and development of defenses to emerging anti-ship weapons.
Roderick V. Louis
(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
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.