UK: Whitehall report - Navy would struggle to fight a war

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."

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."

A very comprehensive post, some of it good, some of it bad.

It isn’t in our national interests to rely on other nations for armaments, as these can be reduced or meaningless should allies turn to enemies.

The last lend/lease deal the UK did with the US ripped us off in the Atlantic, with a bunch of barely operational rust buckets being hawked off to the RN in exchange for British sovereign land, and a whole heap of cash. Not to be repeated. Only this year have we ‘paid our debt’ to the US, 60 odd years after the wonderful ‘favour’.

The UK’s shipbuilding industry would suffer as a result of lost contracts for the Astute, Type 45, QE Class and the River’s. With tens of thousands of jobs at stake, it would be stupid to simply pay the Yanks for ships they built. Which, while they MAY be good vessels, wont improve the manufacturing sector of the UK in terms of military builds. So we lose 10,000 jobs, the BAE dry docks in Barrow are sold off, and we can no longer build our own weapons.

We have commissioned the new Albion Class to enable a rapid blue water deployment of marines and ground forces. The hew carriers will dwarf the prospective lend/lease options you cited in your post, namely the 40,000 tonne LHD’s you proposed. Why would we want these inferior carriers, able to carry only a few more planes than our redoubtable Invincible Class, than the 60,000 tonne, state of the art twin island CVF’s able to field near 60 aircraft????? Sounds like someone doesn’t want us to get capabilities that match their own.

The CVF’s are a British design, British manufactured, with little input from the French. Our manufacturing base constructs some superb products, and have made alot of money selling them overseas. Maybe the US would prefer us to keep out of their arms dealing territory, but tough, we aint gonna.

The stripped down versions of the Type 45 you are referring to, state that the vessels have been built for, but not with, certain systems. These would take minimal time for them to be added in event of modern war.

Your comments concerning the carrier that the UK is going to build for France (and its singular, you talks in pluralities), wont be better or more effective that the UK’s. Why would we make something better for another nation???? You also talk about the CVF’s being ill-equipped technologically compared to US carriers being proposed for 2010. but if your vessels are made after, then they will be more advanced than the US’. Obviously!

So we are going to sell our fleet so we can build 2 carriers????? I think not pal. This is some good scaremongering, and would even find some print in a tabloid rag, but serious studied analysis it aint!

Type 23 Frigate: Last vessel commissioned June 2002

Specifications

Weapon Systems

* 2 x quadruple Harpoon missile launchers
* 32 x Vertical Launch Sea Wolf Surface-to-air missiles (VLS GWS 26 Mod 1 Block 2 system)
* 1 x 114 mm (4.5 in) Vickers Mark 8 gun (all ships being upgraded to Mod 1 standard)
* 2 x Oerlikon 30 mm L/75 KCB guns on single Laurence Scott DS-30B mounts. Being upgraded to remote control with electro-optic director
* 4 x Cray Marine 324 mm (2 twin) fixed torpedo tubes, Marconi Sting Ray
* NATO Seagnat, Type 182 and DLF3 countermeasures launchers

Aircraft:

* Westland Lynx HM.8 or AgustaWestland Merlin HM.1 helicopter
* Armament:
o Sea Skua missiles (Lynx only)
o Sting Ray torpedoes
o depth charges

Electronic Systems

* Search: BAE Systems Radar Type 996 Mod 1, 3D surveillance
* Navigation: Kelvin Hughes Radar Type 1007 and Racal Decca Type 1008
* Fire control:
o 2 x GEC Marconi Type 911 Sea Wolf systems
o Sperry Sea Archer 30 optronic surveillance / director
* Bow sonar: Thales Underwater Systems Type 2050
* Towed sonar: Ultra Electronics Type 2031Z, being replaced by Type 2087 in eight ships
* Combat Management System: BAE Systems Command System DNA(1)

Last of the line is only 5 years old, and their are capabilities for surface-to-surface, surface-to-air and ASW. And what developed world nation is going to have a war against the UK? Seriously?

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.