Death of a Navy

[the Black Prince]

Richard Beedall predicted this some time ago on his navy website Navy Matters, a fear of many who cherish the navy is realised

today, Adam Ingram MP confirms that 21 of the navies 44 remaining ships will be put into extended readiness state. This is effectively decommissioning them. Ships in this state would take at least 18 months to be made ready for sea again. In many cases their parts would be cannibalised to keep remaining ships running. 21 of 44... thats 48% of the fleet out of action. and suggestions that they plan to close Portsmouth Naval base as well


has this government truely gone totally and absolutely off its rocker? are they insane? Not for nothing is the navy the most important branch of the armed forces. The marines one of the most respected fighting forces in the world. But the marines cannot operate without their amphibious warships and no one should be stupid enough to send in these carriers and assauklt ships without escorts to protect them from attack by land air and sea. though i'm beginning to think our government really is that stupid.

If we run the navy down it will take over a decade to bring it back up to strength again. Under Fisher, the navy may have managed to build a Dreadnaught in 11 months, but these days, a warship takes a couple of years to build and test, crew training and experience takes even longer to build.

We are an island nation, 80% or more of our trade comes via the sea, 90% of the worlds people live within striking distance of the ocean, and every conflict of this century has in some way involved the Navy. Can our government not learn from the Falklands? Can it not learn from its own mistakes in the most recent Iraq campaign and Afganistan?


i read this article from the Times Online, and i tell you truely, i weep.

Half of Royal Navy’s ships in mothballs as defence cuts bite
Michael Smith
HALF of the Royal Navy is to be “mothballed” as it bears the brunt of cuts imposed after a series of expensive procurement projects and the hidden costs of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Six destroyers and frigates and two other vessels are expected to be put into reduced readiness, known as mothballing, to achieve urgent savings of more than £250m. It can take up to 18 months to bring mothballed ships back into service.

The armed forces have been told to save more than £250m this year, and £1 billion by April 2008, amid a “rebalancing” of the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) spending plans, defence sources disclosed.

The MoD will also cancel the last two of the eight Type-45 destroyers the navy was supposed to get. The navy was promised the government would provide these in exchange for cutting 15 major ships in 2004, sources said.

Julian Lewis, the Tories’ defence spokesman, said the fresh cuts were “absolutely devastating stuff” and that cutting the number of Type-45 destroyers would be “catastrophic”.

“You can’t have a navy without ships. This government is absolutely hellbent on the destruction of the Royal Navy,” said Lewis.

Admiral Sir Alan West, the then first sea lord, has said he only accepted the cuts in return for the “jam tomorrow” of the eight Type-45 destroyers and two large new aircraft carriers he was promised.

Adam Ingram, minister of state for the armed forces, admitted this month that 13 of the Royal Navy’s 44 main vessels were already in mothballs to save cash.

A total of 13 were at sea, and a further 18 in port and ready to go to sea at any time. But the decision to mothball another eight ships will mean that 21 of the 44 are not available. Ingram refused to say which ships were out of action, admitting that this would “enable deductions to be made that could be prejudicial to national security”.

Measures to save money that are already under way include a review of the Royal Navy’s three main remaining bases at Plymouth, Faslane and Portsmouth.

At the height of its power in the 19th century, the Royal Navy was as large as the seven next biggest navies combined. Even as the US and German navies grew at the start of the 20th century, it remained twice as large as its nearest rival.

But the 2004 cuts reduced it to its smallest since before Trafalgar in 1805, and there are suggestions it now needs only two major bases.

The decision last month to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent, based at Faslane, saved the Scottish base and made Portsmouth the favourite for closure.

Mike Hancock, the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, said the cuts were “as potentially damaging as the (then defence secretary, Sir John) Nott cuts of the early 1980s, which preceded the Falklands conflict. Closing the Portsmouth dockyard, the most important of the bases, would be an historic mistake. This government keeps cutting back on equipment without cutting back on commitments. It is putting more on crews and undermining the navy.”

The problems with the defence budget are largely caused by cost overruns in procurement projects such as the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon, the Bowman communications system, and the Navy’s Astute submarine and Type-45 destroyer programmes. The Eurofighter Typhoon programme costs about £1 billion a year, which will rise in the next financial year to £1.3 billion. The other major programme costs are: the Type-45 destroyer £600m, Bowman £545m and Astute £415m.

The cost overruns on procurement are exacerbated by the Treasury’s refusal to refund the costs of training for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and up to 40% of the cost of actual operations. The Treasury claims to meet the full cost.

The MoD said it was not prepared to provide details of internal government budget discussions but it did not expect to see an overspend in this financial year and no budget had been set for next year.

just out of interest, can anyone think of another country that can't afford its navy? i can
Russia

no offence to them, but have we truely sunk to their level? it seems incredible...


Here me every man jack of you. Use your voice, use your democratic power, and should you posess it, use your vote and at every opportunity oppose this government and everything they stand for. at the soonest opportunity, vote them out. vote them out before they destroy further what remains of our once great nation.

[VALIS]

so,theres only going to be 23 ships left?

shocking.i bet those new aircraft carriers and destroyers are mothballed as well.
britain is the 5th richest country in the world and we cant even afford basic military equipment.

with this new plan our navy will be equal to spains and italys,not exactly fearsome nations anymore.

the conservative cuts were pretty bad but under nu labour this is rediculous.

[the Black Prince]

of the destroyers, the original plan was for 12

6 have bveen ordered, Daring, Dauntless, Defender, Duncan Dragon and Diamond
the other 2 have now been cancelled, so we're only getting 6.


of the carriers
still no main gate to begin construction.
If, and itsl ooking more and more likely, if, this project is axed, it will have cost the british taxpayer several billion pounds, for nothing. Just like when they axed the future surface combatent program in 2004, after 5 years of research, at a cost £3.4billion - wasted

of the submarines
the navy wanted 7 of the new Astute class SSNs to re-place 7 Trafalgars and 4 Swiftsures.
so far, 3 have been ordered, and are under construction, Astute, Avenger and Artful. Of the others... no word...

[VALIS]

they also need to build new docks because the existing ones cant handle the weight of the new carriers.

we spent so much money on that obsolete eurofighter.
we should never do a joint military contract with europe again.

Most of the money was spent squabbling over which parts should be made in which countries.

If the argies ever get an appetite for the falklands agin,britain will be up **** creek.Bliar would probably give up the islands though.
could you imagine the headlines

'britain gives up falklands to argentina'
'argentina beats britain'
'britain refuses to liberate its own sovereign territory'

the absolute embarrasment it would bring to our country.
i would have thought if the tories ever got into power they could rectify some of this,but with new boy dave and his green/peacenik hippie agenda then i dont have much hope.

British Armed Forces 1707-2007 RIP

[Tankbuster]

I heard about the construction of a new carrier... in cooperation with the French who don't know how to build one on their own (cf. De Gaulle carrier).
When you're working together with the French on navy matters, you're really low

Anyway, we have to say that new forms of war are being chosen by potential foes, instead of open war... Forms like desert warfare, guerilla, anti-terrorist warfare; things that make navy less necessary and even more vulnerable (cf. that American destroyer who was blown up by a small boat full with explosifs).

[Bwaho]

imagine if Britain wouldn't have had a navy during the napoleonic wars, no navy in WW2 and no navy in the falklandswar... britain wouldn't have been here today!

[Silver Guard]

Thank God, someone got it into their thick skull that we don't need 44 ships, at last, some sense in a senseless world. While we're at it, cut half of the army, keep the RAF, we need that, just in case.

Face it, we don't need a military anymore, we're surrounded by military powers, all of which we are allied to and are incapable of attacking us due to the UN and those other allies we have.

Sure, keep half the armed forces around, you never know what might happen.

[Stalins Ghost]

Ah good, its nice to see the Government ****ing military matters up again. I'm all for trying to reduce the influence of the military in the international sphere, but quite simply, even I realise that we need a decent Navy. It seems odd that Blairites want to quite illegally upgrade our Nuclear Arsenal white ****ing up the conventional forces.

[Erik]

Let's not exaggerate.
Britain and it's allies will still have a navy that is 5 times stronger than the rest of the world combined.

And the world is changing.
When was Britain ever going to use it's navy at full strength?
A few boats might be needed for initial landfall, but the rest of the war is all land+air warfare.
Axing a few gunships to make room for two new carriers is a good idea IMO.

[the Black Prince]

unfortunately, its not the gunships that are feeling the cuts

the River class Offshore Patrol Vessels are unaffected, the older Castle class, used to patrol the falklands are going, but they're being replaced by a special one off River(A) class. The Mine Countermeasures fleet is already at minimum strength


no, the ships are escort ships we're losing

Carriers, from 3 to 2
Destroyers, from 10, to 6
Attack Submarines, from 11 to 7.
Frigates already from 18 to 15 no doubt going lower...


as to what these vessels do, i challenge anyone here not to look through this years newspaper archives and find multiple references to our vessels in action around the world

Drug Busting in the Caribbean and North Africa,
people Smuggling in the med
Evacuation duties off Lebanon
Anti Piracy in the indian ocean
Maritime Security in the Persian Gulf
Maritime Search and Rescue in the Channel, the North Sea, the Irish Sea, and the North Atlantic

those few boats for initial landfall...
how do you protect them?
take the falklands...
would our assault ships have survived to land troops had they not been protected from air craft and missiles by carriers and destroyers. what if instead of being scarred off, the argentine navy had closed... a few anti surface escorts might be useful no?

not to mention the role british frigates and american destroyers played inp roviding naval bombardment in Iraq...
air support you say?
but where from?

while modern combat aircraft may be able to fly to Iraq from bases in the UK, you can't have your combat air support 5 hours flying time away. you need them to be able to respond in minutes. they need to be close to the action to be called in. thats why aircraft carriers are so important.

long range strike bombers may fly to Iraq from air bases, but the close in fighter support for troops on the ground during the invasion came from Hornets, Harriers and Apache gunships launched from US and British carriers in the gulf.

as for not needing 44 ships, the navy would disagree
they need more. they want more

the navy has ships in every theatre on this planet providing a range of duties. and services. at the same time, to maintain itself, the navy undertakes constant aggressive training exercises, often involving ships of multiple navies, such as the regular Exercise Neptune Warrior, off Scotland, and the weekly Thursday War.

With bigger better and more modern ships, ships will spent less time in refit, so for example, 2 carriers can probably do the work of todays 3.
but even so, there is a limit to the number of places ships can be at the same time.


as for when britain used its navy at full strength

we sent 1 carrier to Iraq in 2003
this was our total carrier force available.
at the time Illustrious was in refit, and Ark Royal in extended readiness.
it was rather lucky Invincible was on exercise with a full RN Task Group with the Omani navy at the time...

[Bwaho]

Face it, we don't need a military anymore

I'm sure you didn't need it 20 years ago in the falklands war either huh?


remember what they said about the great war (ww1)... it was supposed to be the war to end all wars... see how that worked out

[LoZz]

o wtf. this has pissed me off >

this countrys one redeaming feature, was its large and impressive military, its strong military history, we are bottom of all the good lists in europe and top of all the bad lists with the the military being the only good one in which we top.

not any more :<


in some weird way i hope something like the falklands happens again, or spain decides to take gibralta just so the world will laugh at our navy and the fact we dont even have one to fight back with, then blair would get what he deserves.

Thank God, someone got it into their thick skull that we don't need 44 ships, at last, some sense in a senseless world. While we're at it, cut half of the army, keep the RAF, we need that, just in case.

Face it, we don't need a military anymore, we're surrounded by military powers, all of which we are allied to and are incapable of attacking us due to the UN and those other allies we have.

Sure, keep half the armed forces around, you never know what might happen.

your being short sited, yes we dont need one now, but what about in 10-20 years time? we dont know what could happen, look at terrorism, 20 years ago apart from NI it wasnt realy somethings that bothered britian or the western world, now look at it, its the biggest security risk their is, who knows what will happen in another 20 years.

[the Black Prince]

did you not read the quotes from the loading screens in RTW SG?

you must prepare in peace what you need in war.

actively running down our armed forces will only cost us further lives in the future, one of those lives may well be your own

[Marcus II]

I thought it was "If you want peace, prepare for war" ?

(though I don't necessarily agree with that statement)

[Cluny the Scourge]

Britain does not need a large and powerful navy and its peculiar notion that it should do is merely a strange cultural anxiety echoing from our imperial past.

We may have needed a strong navy to wage war over the Falklands, that's true, but it completely misses the point - which is that we shouldn't have gone to war over the Falklands in the first place. The Falklands are worthless and the whole thing was merely a propaganda exercise by Thatcher, who saw her public support slipping and grasped at a war to win it back.

What is this fleet supposed to be for? Who are we going to fight against now or ever? And I will not found my ideas on snappy one-line catchphrases from the loading-screens in Rome: Total War by Creative Assembly.

[LoZz]

Britain does not need a large and powerful navy and its peculiar notion that it should do is merely a strange cultural anxiety echoing from our imperial past.

We may have needed a strong navy to wage war over the Falklands, that's true, but it completely misses the point - which is that we shouldn't have gone to war over the Falklands in the first place. The Falklands are worthless and the whole thing was merely a propaganda exercise by Thatcher, who saw her public support slipping and grasped at a war to win it back.

What is this fleet supposed to be for? Who are we going to fight against now or ever? And I will not found my ideas on snappy one-line catchphrases from the loading-screens in Rome: Total War by Creative Assembly.

haha, go ask the actual people who live in the flaklands who they wanted to rule them, propaganda please. the falkland people, just like the people on gibralta want to be part of the UK, it would have been wrong to let them have it. its also a matter or principle, if we had let them get away with it, whats to stop other nations flexing their military agaisnt us? we cant seem as push overs

Well, I wouldn't call it an 'attitude'

american or not, your view is always welcome

Well, let me put it this way. Britain is allied to the U.S. The U.S. navy is the largest in the world with something like 17 active supercarriers. It is one of the several branches of the U.S. military capable of bringing the world to an abrubt end via a global thermonuclear exchange.

Something tells me this isn't the end of britain as we know it.

heh - not in the relationship we have, america is all take and no give, did they help us in the falklands? nope! past and hopefully future american goverments would and have, but not the current goverment, you only have to look at the extratdition treaties to see what kind of relationship we have, and blair the little lap dog wouldnt dare ask for help

[humvee2800]

I actually just made a huge post attacking all topics but deleted it by accident just as i was going to ****ing post (GRRR)

Europes navy is in a sorry state made primarily out of fancy frigates which are nice but hardly important for Stategic level navy usage. Without Britain Europe realy doesnt have any true navy exempt for a few good ships here and there.

To those saying Americas navy pwns think about this

how old are those super carriers?, how big and inviting a target do you think those are? how expensive is every one fo those? and how much of the us navys firepower is put into every single one of those.. Putting all those factors together you can see that although useful those carriers are hardly going to be invincible and if someone sunk JUSt ONE of those carriers America (knowing the leftist views of many citizens) would bend over and cry and america would pull out of the conflict due to lack of support


i could go on but im going to have a seizure if i keep on this high blood pressure right wing anger enduced rant of mine ( )


( OH and ps everyone... IM baaaaaaaaaaaaccccckkk)

[humvee2800]

Oh and one more thing at hsimoorb

an aging and growinly weakening American Navy hardly is going to protect americas interests AS WELL as Europes interests which are often far different then you may think. Also if things keep going this way america might become isolationist in which case Europe will be on its own without a navy and with left wing dumbass ****** governments

[LSJ]

Its always bad for a nation with long ocean borders to be cutting down the navy.
Don't let your government ruin your nations navy like mine did to Canada!
We used to have a huge navy of hundreds of cruisers, frigates, and submarines. We now have like, 33?

[Markas]

heh - not in the relationship we have, america is all take and no give, did they help us in the falklands? nope!

They gave us Satellite photos, I believe. Intelligence is gold-dust.