Shrinking Navy

[tomsam]

This is slightly off target of "Naval Ships" but I did see someone somewhere stating that "what they have done to the Royal Navy was a sin and a shame".
The problem is that the reduction in manpower and ship numbers is not proportionate to the reduction of conflicts around the world.
I have a theory that those guys in WW1/2 were killed in large numbers over a relatively short period. Today we are losing men and civilians over a longer more insidious period of conflict. If this keeps up we will come in line with the amount of casualties of the world wars. Can anyone suggest otherwise that since "Political Correctness" and "Rules of Engagement" came in we are fighting a losing battle so to speak.
On the reduction of the RN. We are fighting a different kind of war today. We no longer need the old slugger type of fighters ( The Battleship ).We need faster more stealthier ships , big and small . So yes we don't see that big visual impact at a fleet review,but we do need plentiful and proper equipment to fight the modern war on land or sea,which I might add is sadly lacking for our troops in harms way.
Tomsam

[herakles]

I was thinking along these lines only today.

As I see things, Britain has spent a lot of energy reducing the armed forces. The RN is but a shell of other days and regiments have folded in significant numbers. Why is this?

I think it's down to one (or both) of two reasons.

1. Britain can't afford the cost of a significant fighting force.

I am sure that the cost of the involvement in Iraq is staggering. Then there's Afghanistan.

As well, modern armaments are very expensive.

2. Britain has backed away from active engagement on the scale that it used to employ.

I am fairly certain that employment in the Armed Forces hasn't the appeal of other days. It's hard to attract men and women (??) and harder to keep them. The value of life is higher than before and there's much negative feeling about engaging. Consider how popular the war in Iraq is.

[CYLLA]

HERAKLES,
another pointer, is in the far off days when we had the COLD WAR taking place.....we needed a far larger amount of anti submarine [ships]then.
And the second point ,we had a hell of a lot of jobs in civvy st ,that were manually and hard work,and the pay was not too secure.So for many the services were just the job.
Now three quarters of jobs ,in the services ,you have to have IT sense....of which you can do already in civvy st ,,for much more pay.
And taking the ROYAL NAVY ,by it,s collar ,it is a fluke that you see alot more of the world ,than we did in the 50,s 60,s 70,s......



cylla

[Commodore Armiger]

The pathetic response to the resurgence of piracy around the Horn of Africa and off the Philippines is but one example of the malaise affecting the will of maritime nations to defend their interests on the high seas. I would hazard a guess that it is only a matter of time before piracy spreads from those areas to the West coast of Africa and perhaps much nearer to home.

160 years ago the RN, the Honourable East India Company and James Brooke (the "White Rajah" of Sarawak) took the fight against the Dyak pirates infesting the waters off Borneo to their riverine lairs, having rightly concluded that protecting each and every merchant vessel was quite impossible.

Today's navies, even if the numbers of vessels were half adequate, would doubtless be hamstrung by their inability to distinguish between the perpetrators and "civilians", in the same way as ground forces have their hands tied by the ability of Afghanis and Iraqis to be "freedom fighters" one minute and innocent civilians the next.

[herakles]

160 years ago the RN, the Honourable East India Company and James Brooke (the "White Rajah" of Sarawak) took the fight against the Dyak pirates infesting the waters off Borneo to their riverine lairs, having rightly concluded that protecting each and every merchant vessel was quite impossible.


And a lot earlier than that glorious business, Julius Caesar did exactly the same thing.

Remarkable man was Brooke. His story is well told by Fraser in one of his Flashman tales.

[astraltrader]

Tomsam - I agree with what you say regarding the need for smaller stealthier ships.

I think the deplorable and savage cuts to the number of RN ships over the past 20 or so years can be put down not to the reasons previously mentioned but simply because Russia is no longer perceived to be a threat. Of course the cost of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is only making things worse.

IMO I would far rather see the money pledged to maintain Trident spent on ships instead.

[herakles]

The way things are going, Russia seems to be a threat all over again.

[CYLLA]

The way things are going, Russia seems to be a threat all over again.



HI ,if it stops us from trading from china ,:mad::mad:


cylla

[Melv.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3100781/HMS-Exeter-destroyer-retired-early-amid-Navy-budget-fears.html

As usual the MOD live in cloud cuckoo land with 2 pencils up their nostrils and their pants over their heads!

The MoD said: "The Royal Navy is meeting its global operational commitments with ships deployed across the world on a variety of tasks... The Royal Navy remains one of the world's most powerful maritime forces."

[herakles]

This is from today's telegraph:

The Royal Navy has mothballed almost half of its remaining fleet of destroyers as it desperately attempts to save money in the face of a plunging budget.


By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:56AM BST 04 Oct 2008



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01003/hms-southampton_1003640c.jpg HMS Southampton:

Pressures on the Navy's budget are immense with cuts of 20 per cent predicted in the next decade.

The Fleet now has just five air defence warships left to protect vessels missile or aircraft attack at a time when other nations such as China, India and Iran are investing heavily in anti-ship warfare.

Three Type 42 destroyers – Exeter, Nottingham and Southampton – have been "parked up" in Portsmouth at "reduced readiness" up to two years before they were due to be decommissioned.

Falklands War veterans are particularly angry after Exeter, the last serving operational ship from the campaign in which it shot down several Argentine fighters, was refused permission to fly a paying-off pennant when it entered harbour after its last mission.

Britain's force of destroyers and frigates has now been reduced from 35 to 22 in the last decade despite government promises it would not slip below 25.
It will be another two years before the first of six of the highly sophisticated Type 45 destroyers can be deployed on operations leaving a "gaping hole" in defences.

Pressures on the Navy's budget are immense with cuts of 20 per cent predicted in the next decade reducing the ship building budget to by £4 billion to £14 billion.

Senior Navy commanders have told The Daily Telegraph that the nation is taking "serious risks" in protecting carrier groups or amphibious flotillas and have accused the Government of neglecting the Fleet that protects the 90 per cent of Britain's imported trade.

It has already ditched the excellent air protection offered by Sea Harriers which were disbanded two years ago and at least two Type 42s have gone on operations with their advanced Sea Dart air defence missiles disabled to save cash.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the Government was attempting to "castrate the Navy" by tying up ships in dock.
"This is an unacceptable price to pay for the Government's failure to plan properly at a time when we facing increasing demands to intercept drugs, arms, people smuggling, pirates as well as conduct operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Richard Scott, Editor of Jane's Navy International, said the Navy was taking "risk on risk" with its neglect of anti-air and anti-submarine warfare.
"Type 42 destroyers have crept over horizon without anyone noticing. We have lost a third of the fleet in the last 10 years. The question remains is where's it all going to end up?"

With the Armed Forces so overstretched the Navy has been forced to provide sailors and Royal Marines to fight in land-locked Afghanistan where it will make up half the force of 8,000 British troops for the next six months. The deployment has used up valuable training time and manpower.

Exeter and Southampton are due to retire in 2009, with Nottingham, which was severely damaged after hitting a rock off Australia in 2002, scheduled to decommission in 2010. But they are unlikely to leave harbour again.
Despite the cuts Navy officers have indicated that the Navy continues to carry out secret surveillance operations against certain countries that cannot be reported.

"We are completely stuffed in terms of air defence and we are taking a hell of a risk with the sufficient resources to do the job properly," a Navy commander said.

"But the Navy has done some incredible things against certain countries in last few weeks that we all should be proud of.
"But these types of skills are so precious that we cannot afford to diminish them any further."

Despite vehement Ministry of Defence denials The Daily Telegraph reported last year that the Navy faced losing half its fleet.
A Navy spokesman said the ships would remain "available for operations with the appropriate notice, if required".

"We ensure we have sufficient forces ready to meet the perceived threats," he added.

[Melv.]

....and there is more! Read the paragraph about where the sailors are actually going.

Death by a thousand cuts!

Little wonder the Defence Secretary was ousted yesterday. Des Brown.... useless tosspot that he was.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3131155/Exclusive-Cash-strapped-Navy-cuts-destroyer-fleet.html

[CYLLA]

And then after all that's going on with our "drawf fleet"..we can't even have enough ships to watch this carry on "stall seats" of these exercise,s taking place through out the world in the coming months.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3130335/Russia-to-stage-largest-air-force-war-games-since-Soviet-times.html

it will be of interest ,of what we can learn of there capability.

cylla

[mik43]

Let's face it gentlemen, our dearly beloved ex-Chancellor, or is he, and now Prime Minister, does not believe in the Armed Forces. The Army only got more and up to date requipment when the number of body bags coming back from Iraq started to grow and embarrassing Coroner's Courts results quite rightly slagged off the MOD for not ensuring that the people were properly equipped and protected. However the MOD can't be blamed in toto as they were having to fight a war with an ever shrinking budget courtesy of said ex-Chancellor. I believe I am correct in saying that Iraq costs initially came out of the normal MOD budget to run the armed forces!!! As regards the RN, number of Type 45's halfed and ditto for Astute. Regardless at how sooper dooper the new ships are, no-one, not even Captain Kirk, can make a ship be in two places at once! As for the Tories saying they are going to buy US equipment and not support UK defence industries just for political reasons - I have one comment on that - look at our power generating capability. We don't have enough because we are dependant now on other countries supplying power, and neither a navy to protect our trade routes when well over 90% of our trade arrives by sea.
Mik

[mik43]

this is depressing, really depressing, I wish I hadn't read it..........
Mik

[CYLLA]

This piccy was taken in the Barents Sea in 1989,.....there,s a "ruskie "on the port side ,i wonder what she picked up at the time ??
We are tooooo rather stretched now for ourselves to be doing this type of exercise at sea dont you think.

[Jan Steer]

Sad reading indeed but aren't we consoled lads by the thought that when it hits the fan America will save us?
Ummm. They will won't they?
Jan

[spruso]

Must be another World War just over the horizon. I think that's the procedure - Nothing is happening so let's cut back the Defence Forces. Then when it all blows up we can spend 5 or 6 years trying to catch up tp where we should have been in the first place. Have they forgotten the Falklands?

Makes as much sense to me as disbanding the Fire Brigade because for haven't had any fires for a few months.

It might make you Brits feel a bit better to know that your politicians don't have the monopoly on stupidity - Australia is up there with the best.

Cheers
Bruce

[CYLLA]

spruso,
could i say "your a bigger island than us"but there again your ,self sufficient in producing your own power.whoops most of our,s come,s from abroad.then we need ships to bring in our goods.
Where in the world would a nuclear sub be any use for ,IF we didnt have the ships to back it up .

just a small point ,..

cylla

[astraltrader]

Yet another appalling move by our untrustworthy government.:mad:

Yes untrustworthy - their tenure in power has been littered by lies and broken promises. :mad:

The latest one of course is that after criticism received after the last round of cuts to our ever shrinking navy is that the total number of destroyers and frigates would not - repeat not - fall below the bare minimum figure of 25 ships.

now it is just 22...:mad:

Also what a cheap and tawdry decision it was that resulted in HMS Exeter, the last serving operational ship from the Falklands campaign where it shot down several Argentine fighters, being refused permission to fly a paying-off pennant when it entered harbour after its last mission. :mad:

Well it is 100% certain that should in the very near future the Argentinians decide to launch another campaign to regain the Malvinas - once they have brushed aside the the 2 Tornado`s and 105 infantry [their Chinook has been swiped to replace losses in Afghanistan] - we most certainly wont be sending a task force to drive them out...:mad:

[astraltrader]

I have amalgamated the two threads "Shrinking Navy" and "More bad Navy News" as they were duplicating the same cuts as reported in the Daily Telegraph.

[spruso]

Hi Cylla,
Quite true, we are a bigger island but with continual tarrif cuts our industries have all but disappeared so it won't be long before were in the same position as UK and importing everything.

Funny - I was looking at an article I wrote for our school magazine in 1957. I pointed out (at the age of 13), that Germany had nearly brought England to it's knees with their submarine campaign against merchant ships in WW2 and that, in the future, Australia may find itself in the same position if it doesn't develop some sort of defence against submarines.

Should I hurry and fax a copy of the article to the Admiralty and our Defence Department?

Ha, Ha!
Cheers
Bruce

[designeraccd]

Just think of the money saved when the RN is reduced to rowboats and rpgs....MORE $$$ for SOCIAL programs! whoopeeeee.......DFO :rolleyes:

[John Odom]

If the election here in the US goes the way I fear, the American military will itself start taking even more savage cuts than it has already. We won't be able to rescue our allies, even Britain, short of nuclear retalliation and doomsday!

[designeraccd]

How true, the US Military will probably get gutted even worse under ohbaaahhhMEEE than Clinton....czar vlad will love it! DFO :eek:

[Melv.]

Slightly off topic but in a similar vein......

Last week a Russian bomber came within 90 miles of Hull without being detected!
Intercept Tornado was eventually scrambled to escort the Russian away from UK airspace.
It transpires that 4 Tornado squadrons have been mothballed or at least taken out of service and a slowdown has been ordered on the delivery of the Typhoon fighter.
Shades of the 1930's indeed.

[astraltrader]

Yes - that does sort of worry me, I must admit.

Since the RN along with the other major european navies have ceased to be world players, I along with many other people have tended to think well at least there is the all powerful USN - should that situation quickly change into America adopting an isolationist position - then Europe will certainly feel the draft...

As Pax Britannica lasted for over 120 years - then out of fairness Pax
Americana should really do the same!!

[CYLLA]

Lets just wait for a "ruskie sub "surfaces in the Thames estuary ,and it excuse is "my sat nav " went on the blink ,or some thing to that effect.
The question asked in parliament ,would be "was there any royal naval ships around "..you must be joking...

Melv i can see where your coming from .

cylla

[SCRG1970]

Is this all deja vu ?

How long before we do another deal for 50 old destroyers for a lease on our foreign bases ???

Oh no I forgot we dont have any foreign bases !!!

Gerry

[astraltrader]

Sadly there is a slight difference. Back in WW2 - the Americans lent us ships to replace those we had lost in the war. They were to supplement our otherwise large Navy.
At the rate we are heading they will need to lend us a Navy and the aircraft to defend and utilise two lonely carriers!:rolleyes:

Mind you we can lend them Devonport and Portsmouth - we wont be using them very much!

[HMS Bergamot]

[quote=herakles;10712]

1. Britain can't afford the cost of a significant fighting force.

quote]

The question is, can Britain afford NOT to have significant fighting force.

I work with a naval reservist. Sadly, he and I both are of the opinion that the RN isn't much bigger than some other countries fishery protection services. The navy should be able to PROJECT power, but it can't even defend itself properly. I don't think I am advocating a return to gunboat diplomacy, but it sure makes the bad guys think when a huge slab of battleship grey turns up off of their coasts.

[astraltrader]

Couldn`t agree more Richard. It is about time we decided not to renew Trident when the time comes up in a few years and then spend the £20-35 Billion it would save on some ships!!

[oldsalt]

Should the two new carriers finally go to sea , where are the screening ships coming from & where will the crews appear from. Maybe the idea is to have our naval forces shrunk into one carrier group at sea, the other group refitting. To cover any trouble spots these ships will have to go into warp speed.:confused::confused::confused:

[astraltrader]

couldn`t agree more!

Also what planes will be on them? The F-35 seems to have run into all sorts of problems and by the time our carriers enter service the Harrier will be elderly to say the least!

The whole thing seems to be a badly thought out muddle.
The Navy seems to have mortgaged what was left of our surface fleet to get these 2 super carriers and as you rightly point out we will not have the ships or men to screen and crew them!

Throughout the savage cuts of the 1990`s and start of this century the RN was defended by the government and navy chiefs as still being a balanced fleet. I fear there is no chance of being called that now!!

Tragically the small hope that remained of a change of Government being able to reverse this distressing state of affairs has now gone because of the massive debts Britain has accrued because of the current financial meltdown.

I feel confident that this will be the reason given for the carriers going the same way as the TSR-2.

I want to be wrong - but I feel sure the Royal Navy is now finished forever as a frontline Navy. If we are "lucky" we might retain a handful of specialised ships that we could either add to an American task-force or one day be a component of a Federal European Navy...


RUE BRITANNIA!

[mik43]

As has been hinted on the forum, but is now fact, the Defence Sec is looking at ways of extending the in-service date for the new carriers. One may still get built as the present Prime Minister has an interest in it being built as Rosyth dockyard just happens to be in his constituency and too many votes rely on it!!! This is the same PM who is responsible for the defence of the realm - fat chance of that as he has done his hardest to ensure our armed forces are reduced to nowt. As Terry mentioned the utterly mad decision to axe the TSR2 was purely political by Harold Wilson (with the help of the Yanks) - who just happened to be a Labour PM - and the waste of what was then an aircraft far ahead of its time. I was lucky to see it in the metal so to speak! If I remember correctly the supposed reason was due to funding, sound familiar?? Unlike Terry I believe in the future Trident as the way things are going it may be our ONLY means of defence the longer this government is left in power.
Mik

[astraltrader]

Hang on Mik - I have never said that I "don`t believe in Trident". My point was really about belief in a/the BRITISH Trident!

The point I was trying to make was purely a financial one.

If it came down to a straight choice between having a Royal Navy fit for purpose but no Trident - or -

The continuation of our shrinking navy into a virtual coastal force but retaining Trident - then I would have no hesitation in plumping for the former.

After all there would never be any question of us ever using Trident unilaterally.

Let me put it in another way.

We cannot afford to spend billions on renewing the Trident nuclear weapon system.

We cannot afford NOT to have an effective independent Royal Navy...

or another way.

We could realistically operate knowing that any need for this country to have nuclear protection would be provided by the Americans.

We could NOT realistically operate knowing that all of our naval needs would be provided by the USN!

Look how many times our Navy has played an important part in our post-war history.

How important have our INDEPENDENT nuclear weapons been in our post-war history?

Whilst I have great respect for your views - I cannot accept "as the way things are going it [Trident] may be our ONLY means of defence the longer this government is left in power." as a serious consideration!!

Of course I wish that we could afford to have the luxury of an independent Nuclear force as well as an up to date effective and balanced navy.

To conclude what I have been saying - as we obviously cant which one do we do without first?

Looked at in this way - the choice to me seems obvious...


What do others of you think?

[apologies here as I am really addressing this to the British members of the forum!]



<!-- / message -->

[astraltrader]

Regarding the sad state of our once proud navy - I was about to post two of these links when I saw them along with a couple of others in a different

thread. [Thanks Huck!]

Try reading these with out coming away upset and bloody angry.

I can`t. :mad:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5299272.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5299272.ece)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5298898.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5298898.ece)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...t-warship.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3569163/Falkland-Islands-to-be-left-without-warship.html)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...e-sailors.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/3627521/Royal-Navy-cuts-betray-our-brave-sailors.html)<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[hucks216]

The effect these cuts/reductions etc will have is just part of the vicious circle that has been going on ever since the first cuts from Labour: less ships+more commitments=more time spent away=more people leaving to be able to spend time with their families=ships being taken out of service to release crews to fill gaps elsewhere=less ships etc.
We have already seen drafts to ships being increased to 4 years (and one of the lads in my department has been on-board for nearly 7 years with no sign of being drafted elsewhere) to try and make up crew shortfalls but nothing is working. I am due to leave the RN in 21 months, time done, and I am always asked by my mess mates if I would do it all again and my answer is always the same "With the way the Navy is, and is going, not a chance!" The Navy is becoming little more then a joke I am afraid. When a Navy has more admirals than ships then you know that there is a problem. The delay with the carriers won't be such a problem as I don't know anyone on 2 deck who can figure out how they will be crewed anyway without stripping the navy further. I can see the navy in 2020 (which is my early estimate of when the first one will enter service) consisting of just two battlegroups made up of one carrier, 2 escorts and a number of support ships. Like I said it is a joke. As for the life of the Type 23's being extended by a further 20 years I will make no comment except that I refer you back to my previous sentence. But considering how much the navy has had to fight for the Type 45's and the carriers I think hoping to get approval to build the Type 23 replacements in the current climate with the other two services requiring money to replace out of date equipment is naive. And does anyone seriously think the government will approve 14+ such ships - not a chance, they didn't even approve 8 TYpe 45's. It is almost as if the government is saying "You have had your £billions for the Type 45's and carriers, make do with it." The army and RAF firmly have the ear of the government but the navy doesn't know how to fight back.
Another problem is that the current climate has the other two services firmly in the limelight - after all the public can see soldiers fighting and aircraft flying on the news every night but the navy contribution is completely ignored and unknown by and large by the public as it is harder to show 'exciting' pictures of a ship circling two oil terminals for weeks on end, or patrolling a big expanse of open ocean - one example I will give you: The X-Factor Help For Heroes song that is out - watch the video for that and see how many sailors are shown! Absolutely none!! And yet 30% of UK armed forces in Afghanistan are Naval related. RM's exempted, we also have FAA squadrons, some on rotations with the RAF, out there and there is the equivalent of a ships company of 'normal' sailors based there working as engineers, drivers, medics etc. Not bad when you consider that Afghanistan is landlocked!! But do the public know this and is it a point the navy makes to the public - no. And also it is hard to make these points to the current crop of civil servants - trying to explain why a ship sailing miles from view is important is a waste of breath as is trying to explain why letting the navy shrink is going to come back to bite us at some point. I bet Argentina is watching with interest. We have sailors based out in Basra working as stores accountants etc but we also have a detachment at the airbase working as airfield defence on the phalanx system. Isn't that what the RAF Regiment is for? The navy might have phalanx on the ships but that shouldn't mean we get stitched to man it because the RAF can't be bothered.
The future for the navy is not looking rosy and I don't see it improving.

[Stan.J]

Articles from todays Sunday Telegraph

[designeraccd]

So this is where ALL the RN fans are.......... At any rate, found the attached jpeg; doo I DEETECT a wee bit of UNhappiness with your PM????! NOT being very familiar with Brit slang...I'm not exactly sure of the meaning....but I take it this expresses SOME dissatisfaction??? But just think of how well all your social programs are taking care of your many friends from overseas that are now in the UK...now, aren't u-all HAPPEEE @ that....oh kinda like I am with the approx. 12 MILLION illegals here from "south" of the border that my tax $ help support??? DFO :rolleyes::D:D

[designeraccd]

Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap HarriersMichael Smith
THE RAF is trying to use a major cash crisis within the Ministry of Defence to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm, defence sources said last week.

Its campaign, which is being fought under the slogan “one nation, one air force”, has led to the head of the Royal Navy, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band threatening to resign.

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of air staff, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the navy and the air force.

Torpy believes that the lack of a carrier-borne attack aircraft until the first of the new aircraft carriers comes into service, now 2015 at the earliest, will not be a problem.

He argues that with the main focus of UK military operations for the next decade likely to be land-locked Afghanistan, there is no current need for carrier-borne aircraft.

When the new carriers come into service the RAF can fly the Joint Strike Fighters that are currently due to fly off them.

Scrapping the Harriers five years early in 2013 is seen as a relatively painless way of saving £1bn, the cost of keeping the aircraft flying.

The £1bn is what the National Audit Office says will be the cost of two Harrier support contracts, one with BAE Systems and the other with engine supplier Rolls Royce.

It is the only aircraft support contract that has yet to be signed so the MoD could decide not to go ahead with it without incurring penalty clauses.

Getting rid of the Harriers will also lead to the closure of the Joint Harrier Force base at RAF Cottesmore in Rutland, adding to the cost savings.

Torpy is thought to have the support of Air Marshal Jock Stirrup, the chief of defence staff, for the measure which is set to lead to a major clash between the RAF and the navy.

But senior naval sources said last week that Band will resign if the RAF proposals are pushed through. "He's had enough," one said. "The navy has been cut and cut and cut again to get the carriers."

The conflict comes amid what the sources said was the worst inter-service fighting since Labour’s notorious “east of Suez” defence cuts of the mid-1960s.

Band is furious that the navy is taking the brunt of the cutbacks caused by a £2bn black hole in the defence budget, the sources said.

John Hutton, defence secretary, will announce this week that the navy’s cherished two aircraft carriers will be delayed by up to two years.

The navy agreed to a string of cuts to its ship numbers to keep the carriers and is now facing not only the loss of all its fixed-wing aircraft but also major cuts to its submarine force.

One of a number of options designed to save money involves the accelerated retirement of the navy’s current Trafalgar-class attack submarines and delays to the Astute replacements.

This would leave the navy with only four attack submarines for the five years between 2020 and 2025, compared to the current eight.

It has also been told its new frigates, known as the future surface combatants, have been indefinitely postponed and plans to get rid of aging Type-22 frigates have been scrapped.

Hutton has told the defence chiefs that they must come up with a final plan to save the £2bn shortfall by a meeting of the defence board on Friday December 19.

The Ministry of Defence declined to comment on the issue ahead of Hutton’s anticipated announcement this week.


Here I thought ONLY the Germans were capable of self destruction of their fleet....good grief, what RN??? DFO :eek:

[ChalkyWhite]

In all this thoroughly depressing news, views, etc I thought I might resurrect this You Tube video. With apologies to whoever it was posted it first.
Just to make a few of you laugh again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6h8i8wrajA

I hope this link works.

Chalky White

[hucks216]

Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap HarriersMichael Smith
THE RAF is trying to use a major cash crisis within the Ministry of Defence to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm, defence sources said last week.

[/COLOR][/I]

The navy only has itself to blame by scrapping it's own aircraft and sharing RAF Harriers, thus handing the political advantage to the RAF (or as we call them in the navy now - Civvies In Uniform).

[designeraccd]

Looks like the RAF never gives up....apparently they don't remember WW II very well................DFO :eek:

[hucks216]

Looks like the RAF never gives up....apparently they don't remember WW II very well................DFO :eek:

They probably can't remember the last time one of their aircraft shot down an opponent either!

[Melv.]

I do support what Hucks is saying. BUT

It must be remembered that the RAF number of personnel is now a measly 40,000 which is not far off the number of personnel employed by Woolworths.

The RAF has been hit time and time again with aircraft and squadron cuts and airbase closures in the past 20 years.
The latest madness announced is the future closing of RAF Lyneham for absolutely no goood reason other than to save a few quid.

The last 'combat kill' was probably the Falklands Campaign and I accept the fact that the RAF were flying off RN Carriers.

Never forget that RAF still take the brunt of the action and may I remind you all of the recent Nimrod crash and the Hercules crash.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/safety-journey-nears-end-at-last-for-raf-hercules-401647.html

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/FourteenPersonnelInAfghanistanNimrodCrashNamed.htm


The RAF is also experiencing a terrible retention problem with manpower and it will get only worse....like the Navy and Army it is a 100% volunteer force and many Airmen vote with their feet to leave and they are leaving in their droves due to what they consider to be unacceptable terms and conditions being placed upon them.

I firmly believe..... and it will never happen I don't think, is for the Service Chiefs to carry out a mass resignation in protest against this Government in order to make them change their minds. Perhaps this is a step tooo late and should have been done far sooner.
Melv. (RAF Rtd. 32 Years front-line service).

[astraltrader]

I am with Melv on this one.

I think it is true to say that both the Royal Navy and the RAF have suffered disproportionally in comparison to the Army, from the savage defence cuts imposed over the past 30+ years.
Sadly even the Army do not have the equipment they desperately need to carry out the tasks given to them...


We are a naval forum which is the only reason why the current plight of the Royal Navy is given prominence over the RAF`s current state.

If we were an Aviation forum I am sure we would be concentrating on the plight of the RAF.


I am truly appalled at this latest piece of madness concerning the FAA Harriers. This has to be stopped somehow. Building on the comments already made here - perhaps every senior officer involved should resign "en masse". A terrible blinkered decision. :mad::mad:

[astraltrader]

Also thank you Hucks for the heads up view from you and your colleagues.

Morale in the Navy seems as bad as I thought it must be...

[designeraccd]

As a UK friend pointed out to me: the Victory and Warrior could soon be the UK's "best armed" ships...take GOOD CARE of them!! DFO :rolleyes:

[kookaburra]

IMHO this is the thread where a love of ships, nostalgia for the greatness of the past, and a certain amount of delusion meets reality.

It’s probably cold comfort that in the unfolding world financial crisis the Royal Navy will not be the only one to suffer these kinds of reductions (and it would happen in the U.K., in general, under governments of any hue). It is also the nature of our democracies that such cuts are made much more readily than in those authoritarian countries which care less, and whose governments are not held in any way accountable, for the living conditions of their people.

One can see that it is hard for U.K. forumers to see the Royal Navy reduced to a force of about 30-35 combat units (is that about right?), and becoming smaller, say, than those of emerging powers like India, and, of course, China. And that in future – as a force in defence of democracy – it can only be one of a number.

I think many historians generally trace the decline of Britain’s role as a world power back to the Treasury-sapping effects of the Boer War, compounded by the two world-wide tragedies that occurred over following 45 years, in what was the bloodiest of centuries.

To me, the reasons this will continue to happen are, at present, primarily financial; but also cultural – the changed attitudes in modern societies to military service; the emergence of asymmetrical warfare, and the rapid change in military technology. It is not only navies. In the not-too-distant future, air forces will feel the effects of pilotless interceptors.

Yet one can see that force projection will remain a need, in regions like the Middle East, and with countries like, say, Iran or North Korea - quite apart from the eruptions that will occur elsewhere from time to time around the world requiring intervention or assistance.

Still, I’ll end with what may be a provocative thought. I wonder if anyone else begins to sense – as I do - that the gargantuan aircraft carriers of the USN are beginning to feel a little anachronistic, like the giant Japanese battleships of the 1940s. Still awesome, and perhaps needed in strategic sense, but in many ways less relevant to modern conflicts, considering the scale of their investment.

I always remember, during the Cold War, listening to a couple of quite high level (but non-military) Americans in a casual chat. The thing that they were saying was that in the event of a big-power break-out, those aircraft carriers –tracked everywhere by satellites and continuously targeted by missiles – would be the first to go, and represented the one place on earth where you would not want to be.

Well, I sense this doesn’t add to any particularly cogent argument - but that’s my two cents for the day.

Edit: I guess the central thought I was trying to express was that the world and technology have changed so much that navies will remain essential as mercantile police forces and with a role in some kinds of limited conflict. But they will never again be the primary source of power projection that they used to be.

[designeraccd]

AS powerful as the giant nuke carriers can be....in a BIG war, yup...target #1 on the water. There is quite a bit of on-going discussion over here as to the SHAPE the USN needs to be. Multi-baaazillyunn $ CVs are unfortunately, like the BBs of yore...the last wars' weapons. IMhO. Still "love" the BB 64 Wisconsin tho! DFO :)

[herakles]

A most perceptive post Kooka, one that I concur with.

I am aware that an aircraft carrier requires at least 15 other ships around her for protection.

Their main role now seems to be attacking ground based targets. Which requires them to be at least reasonably close to a battlefield.

The trouble is that today's battles are not clearly defined neither are there that many useful targets.

A pertinent question to ask is this: just what IS the role of a nation's navy now?

[astraltrader]

You make some cogent points Jeff.

I would just like to say however that with a surface fleet of 22 combat units of which even some of those are planned to be consigned to an inactive status, we are clearly unable to meet our present undertakings.
As has been already stated we have at present barely 7 or 8 of these ships fully fit for service and they are all at present being used.

Whilst I accept the days of large fleets of surface ships are clearly over for most countries - the savage cuts imposed upon the RN are way beyond the downsizing undergone by all of the other naval powers.

For example only as little as 5 years ago we had a fleet of surface combatants larger than the French Navy.

Compare those figures today and you will see the position has drastically changed - despite the fact we have over twice the commitments that the French currently have.

We have just had to withdraw the only warship we had on station at the Falklands. Is that a prudent signal to send to the Argentinians?

It is not just about Carriers.

[herakles]

Britain has certainly been far more active that the French!!

But in every case her role has been based using troops on the ground.

Earlier the role of the RAF was raised. Now I raise the role of the British Army that has also been decimated. And so many times we read that their equipment is inadequate or faulty.

I believe the issue comes down to just this: there are those that remember Britain's role in the past and wish to see that continue. But on the other hand, there is massive anti-war cum belligerence feelings now in the population. Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan underline this. The Govt. is very aware of this and can safely run down its armed forces without attracting voter backlash. And save a great amount of money.

[astraltrader]

Sorry -I haven`t the time to go anymore into this - other than to say - I dont agree with what you have said at all.
Read the post above from hucks - a serving member of RN at present - to underline much of what I believe to be the situation.

I have nothing further to add.

[designeraccd]

Yup, always so nice to "save" $ by gutting the military, whoops....until all of a sudden someone is knocking on your "door" with military force.

USofA durn near got caught with its pants down on this day (7 DEC) in 1941. Had not FDR gotten things somewhat moving a couple of years previous we would have been in a total world of hurt...and UNABLE to be the "Arsenal of Democracy". Gee...now didn't those-let em fail-car companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler contribute, MASSIVELY, to building that arsenal? naaahh...........DFO :rolleyes:

ps: I have 2 words for a certain senior Senator from Alabama: nope...not let's dance.

[mik43]

I didn't think things could get much worse, an unarmed RFA as 'guardship' for the Falklands because the RN is so overstretched and so small it hasn't got a spare frigate, the two new carriers look to be disappearing into the fog again, and to cap it all the RAF, yes the RAF, have 'offered' to axe the last remaining Harriers to save £2bn +/-!!! But, I hear you say, don't worry we have the JSF coming to take their place. Only problem is the current unofficial but well informed thinking of those in the know is that is 10-15 years ahead. Things have got really bad when inter-service rivalry takes precedence over the defence of the Realm. God help us all!
Mik

[oldsalt]

Britain has certainly been far more active that the French!!

But in every case her role has been based using troops on the ground.

Earlier the role of the RAF was raised. Now I raise the role of the British Army that has also been decimated. And so many times we read that their equipment is inadequate or faulty.

I believe the issue comes down to just this: there are those that remember Britain's role in the past and wish to see that continue. But on the other hand, there is massive anti-war cum belligerence feelings now in the population. Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan underline this. The Govt. is very aware of this and can safely run down its armed forces without attracting voter backlash. And save a great amount of money.

Wonderful idea, maybe you could convince all the worlds nations to be anti-war, but while that is happening we should learn lessons from past history, if we don't we stand the chance of repeating them.

[kookaburra]

I must say that after reading the reports on this thread over the past week or so, the full extent of the RN's windback has taken me by surprise, as with Britain's other services, and I remain puzzled about both the economic reasons and strategic defence planning behind it. Prior to the present global financial meltdown - which began just two months ago - the general impression from abroad is that Britain's modern service sector economy had been doing well, for at least a decade or so.
One became accustomed to hearing about well-heeled Britons buying up whole swathes of the French and Iberian coasts.

As the country continued to undertake quite a large number of military commitments abroad, somehow one just assumed its forces were being maintained at some commensurate level. Apparently not so. One has to wonder now whether there was a high degree of cynicism about it, committing levels of support to the war on terror which were at least partly aimed at securing a broader 'free ride' on American military capacity in the future.

Well, now Britain has another commitment to lead, and the frigate Northumberland to send from its scarce resources to EU's anti-piracy mission in the Horn of Africa, which I guess everyone is reading about today. This report is on Germany's hedged anxiety about the rules of engagement. One maritime expert here says at least 100 naval ships would be needed to resolve the piracy off Somalia. I think the EU is planning to send five.



http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3854523,00.html


The local reports here picked up from The Guardian at least showed the French almost there anyway, with this picture of the French helicopter carrier Jean de Vienne at Suez published here today.

[herakles]

I have that feeling that Britain went down the path of massive social security measures such as the NHS, and they didn't realise the cost of this venture.

As well, their reluctance to fully embrace the EU and the Euro put restrictions on their exports. Further, much of Britain's export earnings were tied up in industries that have now all but gone - ship building, car manufacture and the such.

There's no doubt that their financial businesses have done well in the past but assisted only a few. And now that the financial sector has all but collapsed, the drain on their economy is massive.

Small wonder that their armed services have been downgraded.

[astraltrader]

You have got it in a nutshell Jeff. It is the sheer scale of the cuts made on the RN over the past decade - and still being made!

You are also correct that up until recently our economy was performing better than most other countries - and the Navy should have been maintained at some commensurate level. Sadly this did not happen with any of our armed-forces but most seriously this happened with the Navy - who were not only failed to be maintained but were also subject to drastic cut-backs...

Of course especially since the "end of the cold-war" and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the need for European countries to retain such large combat surface fleets have understandably become reduced.
This was especially true for the RN. The reasons why so many are now protesting about the cuts are because they have surpassed all logic and reason and now seriously affect our ability to undertake our current drastically reduced commitments.

Also the Navy is finding that a lot of what they have managed to achieve over the past 5 years with severely depleted resources has been buried under all the news and publicity generated by events in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In comparison the need to maintain patrols and a presence in the Middle East, West Indies, Falklands plus world-wide Hurricane, Flood relief, Pirate Patrols, Anti-Drug operations etc,etc,etc generates little publicity. I also haven`t gone at all into the obligations the navy have to fulfill ,regarding taking part in various world-wide joint exercises with other navies!

As can be heard from listening to current serving officers and men in the RN achieving all this with little more than 8 ready to sail combat ships has become little short of a disgrace.

[mik43]

Well said Terry, I completely agree.
Mik

[oldsalt]

With all these cuts why havn't we withdrawn the Army from Germany, are there too many vested interests?

[astraltrader]

Keith - in October 2010 the Prime Minister announced large cuts in defence which will greatly reduce the number of troops we have in Germany with all UK troops currently there to leave by 2020.
<SUP></SUP>

[oldsalt]

Thanks for that Terry, must have been otherwise engaged when that was announced. :confused::confused::o:o:)

[CYLLA]

When you look at the amount of vessels that are placed around the world,it do,s not make much head room to make any mistakes in deploying ships to other places ,If a crisis should happen we appear to be rather thin on the oggin.

cylla

[Dave Hutson]

You are so right Cylla ..... as said before it is only 60 years ago that to venture on the high seas, provided it was legitimate, every vessel, of almost every nation, could call upon the Royal Navy for protection. But that was when we had a Navy to be rekoned with [in size, I hasten to add before the modernists open fire] and there was still a Great before Britain.

Nuff sed.

Dave H

[CYLLA]

Hi Dave Hutson,

It seems i may have been correct in my thoughts of ........If a crisis should happen we appear to be rather thin on the oggin...... by this ...

The 4 th paragraph spells it out ........:eek:


Further defence cuts to be reviewed at emergency talks


The Government is considering further emergency defence cuts following the discovery of a huge gap in the defence budget.

Last October's defence review, which imposed substantial cuts in the numbers of all three services and the cancellation of major equipment projects, is to be revised further.

Next Wednesday an emergency meeting of the Defence Management Board, senior political and military officials at the MoD, is to discuss the need to cut the expenditure for the current year by an additional £4 billion. The current overspend is estimated at at least £13 billion over the next few years - though some analysts say the figure is much nearer £20 billion.

The crisis spreading across the Middle East, particularly the Gulf, as well as the major spring offensive coming up in Helmand, is causing a major rethink, and possible revision, of some of the proposals laid down in last October's Strategic Defence and Security Review.

The vulnerability of Bahrain, a key naval base for western allied operations in the upper Gulf, is causing a rethink of naval strategy. It is the home of the US 5th Fleet, and the British services make a major contribution to the international headquarters there.

The vulnerability of shore naval bases in the Gulf and the Mediterranean has boosted the case for the acquisition of two large aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. Under the defence review the existing light carriers,such as HMS Ark Royal, are being phased out

cylla

[Dave Hutson]

Cylla , You get it , I get it and most of the Forum members get it.- so why can't the Buffoons in Government get it :confused::confused:

With possibly one exception. Last night on Questiontime Nigel LeFarge of UKIP asked the question "Why are we giving 1 Billion in Overseas Aid to India over the next three years when she is a growing economy - has Aircraft Carriers WITH Aircraft - has Nuclear Capability - huge Armed Forces and money of her own". The panel waffled back at him but as usual noone answered the question. They just tried to make him look thick.

Excuse me - off into the shed to continue work on my "Ark" [Noah like].:rolleyes:

Dave H

[CYLLA]

When you look at the amount of vessels that are placed around the world,it do,s not make much head room to make any mistakes in deploying ships to other places ,If a crisis should happen we appear to be rather thin on the oggin.

cylla

It appears it,s coming to frustration in what i said...


http://tinyurl.com/5sghjvg


cylla

[Ednamay]

The trouble will come when they conscript the Isle of Wight ferries into the 'armed forces' ......................

Edna

[Dave Hutson]

The trouble will come when they conscript the Isle of Wight ferries into the 'armed forces' ......................

Edna

And a day later the Torpoint Ferries :D:D

[Scurs]

And a day later the Torpoint Ferries :D:D


The Mersey Ferries having already been used! :D

[oldsalt]

Lybia, one frigate to get 3500 away, is that the best GB can do ?

[Scurs]

Old Salt.............given what successive Governments have reduced the navy to, lucky to get even that!:mad:

[Vegaskip]

I see on the latest BBC news(1100) that the Prime Minister has apologised for the Government's handling of the evacuation of civilians from Libya. Well thats all right then! (maybe I should have posted this in the 'Courts Martial' thread)
Jim

[CYLLA]

Having just read this report on Libya, and the evacuation of workers who are still out there.What would have been ideal vessel would have been H.M.S Intrepid, or Fearless, and then they would not have to worry has much as this...............using there landing craft to ferry people from shore to ship.

{A British warship has been sent to Libya but is unable to dock because of safety concerns while a plane chartered by the Government was delayed by more than ten hours at Gatwick.}



what complacent governments we have had in the last couple of decades , thinking of the present ,...none of the future.

cylla

[Vegaskip]

The acronim SNAFU comes to mind.
Jim

[johnny07]

Sad reading indeed but aren't we consoled lads by the thought that when it hits the fan America will save us?
Ummm. They will won't they?
Jan

They usually do. :(

[astraltrader]

After all the criticism of the post-cold war US foreign policy that seems to reflect the current feeling of many Europeans I would not blame the Americans if they did adopt a far more isolationalistic stance in the future.

Yes there have been mistakes but at least they have always been prepared to try and promote democratic world peace by the isolation and punishment of a succession of "rogue" states that have attempted to threaten regional stability and ultimately the security of the world as we know it - not just as perceived in terms of American interests but also those of Europe and the rest of the so called "Free World".

Unfortunately in generalised terms it is has proven to be far easier for Europeans to criticise than it is to suggest, yet alone promote, any sort of coherent alternative. IMHO it always is!

I find from my own experience that few people even in this country are able to see that looking ahead we have already reached the stage where Europe needs America far more than America needs Europe.

I am sure that there will be many members who will not agree with this but I was just replying to Johnny07s post above and his answer to Jan Steers point/question.

I am not sure that "they usually do" can be expected to continue unless other countries [not just Europe] are prepared to offer more than just criticism. Just a feeling....