Royal Navy: "We don't have enough ships"

[Ma Deuce]

Linky

We haven't got enough ships to fight another Falklands War, says the head of the Navy
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 13/02/2005)

Cuts to the Royal Navy's fleet of warships have left it too weak to fight another Falklands War, according to the service's most senior officer.

Adml Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, said that the Government's defence cuts have left the Navy with too few ships to sustain even moderate losses in a maritime conflict, despite Ministers' assurances

Sir Alan added that with a target number of only 25 frigates and destroyers it was likely that only a dozen would be available at any one time for war fighting. In 1982 the fighting element of the Royal Navy consisted of three aircraft carriers, 15 destroyers, 50 frigates and 33 submarines.

In today's Navy there are three carriers, nine destroyers, 18 frigates and 15 submarines. Another frigate and destroyer will be cut by the end of the 2005, reducing the number from 27 to 25. The Navy's two new aircraft carriers are due to come into service around 2013, but Sir Alan warned the Government that it could not afford any further delays to the £3 billion future carrier programme.

He added that if the Government chose not to go ahead with the carriers then in "20 years' time, soldiers and sailors will be killed". In an interview to be published in the next issue of Warships International Fleet Review, the First Sea Lord said: "I have been in the Navy for 40 years and in my time have fought in a fairly large maritime war - the Falklands - where, of 23 frigates and destroyers sent to the South Atlantic in the task force, four were sunk and eight were damaged. My own ship was sunk in Falkland Sound. It was a pretty high attrition rate.

"Therefore having only a dozen major surface warships available for an operation is indeed unrealistic. In fact, this country needs about 30 surface combatants to carry out standing tasks and handle contingencies like sending a task group to take part in a major operation. The reduction from 32 to 25 frigates and destroyers was only accepted with great reluctance.

"However, the package of money that the Royal Navy receives [from the Treasury] does not allow us to have 30 destroyers and frigates, especially as the future carrier, amphibious ships and other programmes are a high priority." Sir Alan said that the planned construction of the two 60,000 ton aircraft carriers should be started immediately. "There have been statements from ministers to the effect that they will be ordered and it is Government policy to build them. Even so, we have still not got there.

"You cannot have a serious expeditionary warfare capability without aircraft carriers and that is something the head of all three services agree on. The structure we are creating, which includes taking cutbacks in the short term, does not make sense without the new carriers," he said.

Sir Alan also said the decision on whether Britain should maintain its nuclear deterrent needs to be taken in the next parliament. "The Vanguard Class ballistic missile submarines need to be replaced by 2020, so someone needs to start thinking about it now. Personally, I don't think the UK should give up having a nuclear deterrent, but that is a decision for the politicians," he said.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said that despite a reduction in the size of the Royal Navy, Britain's overseas interests could still be protected. He said: "These days Britain has to rely on having a collective defence of its interests with our Nato and European partners."

[Rogue 9]

They barely had the ships to fight in the Falklands as it was. You'd think they'd have learned. How long until they get out their CVF, assuming the program isn't cut?

[Axis Kast]

They barely had the ships to fight in the Falklands as it was. You'd think they'd have learned. How long until they get out their CVF, assuming the program isn't cut?

Sometimes, I don't think the drubbing they gave the Argentines did much good once the "Long Peace" after the Cold War set in.

Western nations - often with good reason - scrambled to do away with their conventional forces (at least in large part) after the Cold War. Only recently is the need for more firepower coming back to bite everyone in the ass.

[Shinova]

Does Britain hold a lot of overseas possessions and territories like the US does?


I was thinking that the British's or the EU in general's strong arm was their economic influence, not their military presence. But anyway.

[Shinova]

Probably if there is a conflict that needs solving, the EU'll have the US do the dirty work for them. America and the EU's interests usually coincide, and if not, the threat of degrading political and economical relations usually gets the US to follow up, given that they can't afford to lose the EU as a political and economical partner.

[Rogue 9]

Does Britain hold a lot of overseas possessions and territories like the US does?


I was thinking that the British's or the EU in general's strong arm was their economic influence, not their military presence. But anyway.

The Falklands is still held by Britain and they'd like to keep it that way. I don't know if Argentina is still agitating to get the "Maldives" back, but if they are this announcement would be making me nervous if I was Britain.

[Stormbringer]

Probably if there is a conflict that needs solving, the EU'll have the US do the dirty work for them.

Not necessarily. I would like to think we can be fair about deploying troops and men to help allies as we certainly ask it of them.

But relying on any foreign nation, even one as close as the US and the UK, is a bad policy. Unexpected circumstances can come up, nations interests can change, and politicians can just be craven. It's unwise to reduce one's self to level where foreign intervention is the only means of military defense.

[Stofsk]

So when did the Royal Navy, which has kept Britain's shores its own for centuries, become this shrunken waste of a thing? And why is the Future Carrier or whatever, powered conventionally? What the fuck is wrong with using nuclear power?

[Sea Skimmer]

Does Britain hold a lot of overseas possessions and territories like the US does?

It still has a considerable number scattered over the world, and the continuing cuts to its surface fleet have forced a number of overseas patrol stations which the RN has maintained for in some cases hundreds of years to be eliminated.

Interestingly, not long before the Falklands war budget cuts caused the British to stop maintain a patrol vessel at the islands, which was a move which in part encouraged the Argentineans to attack, as they believed it demonstrated that Britain didn't care about the island's

So when did the Royal Navy, which has kept Britain's shores its own for centuries, become this shrunken waste of a thing? And why is the Future Carrier or whatever, powered conventionally? What the fuck is wrong with using nuclear power?

It's conventional. Using nuclear power would probably add a significant fraction if not a whole billion more USD to the cost of each vessel. Anyway, nuclear power for carriers makes less sense then nuclear escort do, because the vast size of a CV leaves plenty of room for fuel. As it is USN nuclear carrier transport thousands of tons of fuel for their escorts.

[Axis Kast]

Actually, the U.S. was widely regarded as having given the British the "finger" over the Falklands; we offered to help negotiate a settlement, which in itself seemed to legitimize the Argentine position.

[brianeyci]

Sir Alan warned the Government that it could not afford any further delays to the £3 billion future carrier programme.

It costs the equivalent of seven billion Canadian for an aircraft carrier program? And to think the looney Conservatives in this country were thinking of buying a few aircraft carriers with our puny 5 billion dollar slurpus, unbelievable.

Brian

[JME2]

So when did the Royal Navy, which has kept Britain's shores its own for centuries, become this shrunken waste of a thing? And why is the Future Carrier or whatever, powered conventionally? What the fuck is wrong with using nuclear power?

I was just as shocked as you were. Fools -- the Spanish could come a-knocking any day!

[Stormbringer]

So when did the Royal Navy, which has kept Britain's shores its own for centuries, become this shrunken waste of a thing? And why is the Future Carrier or whatever, powered conventionally? What the fuck is wrong with using nuclear power?

I was just as shocked as you were. Fools -- the Spanish could come a-knocking any day!

Maybe, maybe not. But if the Royal Navy can't at least slap around a Latin American country, well that's just a sad sad thing.

Nelson must be ashamed.

[Rogue 9]

Does Britain hold a lot of overseas possessions and territories like the US does?

It still has a considerable number scattered over the world, and the continuing cuts to its surface fleet have forced a number of overseas patrol stations which the RN has maintained for in some cases hundreds of years to be eliminated.

Interestingly, not long before the Falklands war budget cuts caused the British to stop maintain a patrol vessel at the islands, which was a move which in part encouraged the Argentineans to attack, as they believed it demonstrated that Britain didn't care about the island's

But the HMS Endurance hadn't actually left the South Atlantic yet when the attack came. The Argentinians jumped the gun a bit there.

[Rogue 9]

So when did the Royal Navy, which has kept Britain's shores its own for centuries, become this shrunken waste of a thing? And why is the Future Carrier or whatever, powered conventionally? What the fuck is wrong with using nuclear power?

I was just as shocked as you were. Fools -- the Spanish could come a-knocking any day!

Bah, the Royal Navy can still kick around the Spanish Armada. They've only got one baby carrier to Britain's three.

[Ma Deuce]

It costs the equivalent of seven billion Canadian for an aircraft carrier program? And to think the looney Conservatives in this country were thinking of buying a few aircraft carriers with our puny 5 billion dollar slurpus, unbelievable.

This may seem painfully obvious, but the size of the carrier has a big impact on the cost: no modern proposal for a Canadian carrier I've seen or heard of envisioned a vessel larger than about 20,000 tons (1/3 the size of the CVFs). From what I've been told, one of the more interesting proposals would be a helicicoptor/STOVL vessel that would tie in with the planned replacement of the CF-18s with JSFs in 15 or so years (assuming the 'effing Liberals don't cancel the JSF procurement: and I'm not too optimistic they won't, given the Sea King fiasco): the idea is when the RCAF starts buying CTOL JSFs, we pick up some STOVL models as well.

BTW, the surplus is better than $9 billion now...

[brianeyci]

I'm not too optimistic they won't, given the Sea King fiasco...

They wouldn't dare repeat that. Sea King cancellation was a promise by Chretien, he had to keep his word or he would look like a fool (yes I know there are other promises they did not keep, but those were written down in the "red book" that nobody reads and not repeated over and over by the media). No such limitation now. Liberals have to keep everybody happy because they are a minority, and an election will happen again in less than two years, so if they propose signficant changes to the military, especially cuts when they have promised expansion, they will be fucked up the ass. Cutting the military IMO would be equivalent to Dalton in Ontario raising tax when he promised not too -- very easy to make Martin look stupid, just put a soundbite of Martin saying he would expand the military followed by Martin saying he's cutting the military.

BTW, the surplus is better than $9 billion now...

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Went from 5 billion to 9 billion after the end of the fiscal year, so they are forced to use the majority of that for debt reduction correct? So by law they can't even touch the extra money they found except use it to pay down the debt.

Brian

[Stormbringer]

So when did the Royal Navy, which has kept Britain's shores its own for centuries, become this shrunken waste of a thing? And why is the Future Carrier or whatever, powered conventionally? What the fuck is wrong with using nuclear power?

I was just as shocked as you were. Fools -- the Spanish could come a-knocking any day!

Bah, the Royal Navy can still kick around the Spanish Armada. They've only got one baby carrier to Britain's three.

But what about the dastardly French! The frogs have a carrier! They could be the mighty Royal Navy!

[JME2]

I was just as shocked as you were. Fools -- the Spanish could come a-knocking any day!

Bah, the Royal Navy can still kick around the Spanish Armada. They've only got one baby carrier to Britain's three.

But what about the dastardly French! The frogs have a carrier! They could be the mighty Royal Navy!

Uh-huh. And there's not going to be any time travel whatsoever in the final episode of ENT...

[Stormbringer]

But what about the dastardly French! The frogs have a carrier! They could be the mighty Royal Navy!

Uh-huh. And there's not going to be any time travel whatsoever in the final episode of ENT...

Come one, the Royal Navy being inferior to the Frogs? It's a travesty! Hell, they barely have any capital ships left.

And I must say, the Frogs could beat the Royal Navy.

[Ma Deuce]

They wouldn't dare repeat that. Sea King cancellation was a promise by Chretien, he had to keep his word or he would look like a fool (yes I know there are other promises they did not keep, but those were written down in the "red book" that nobody reads and not repeated over and over by the media). No such limitation now.

Point taken, however it's still reasonable to assume the JSF procurement will be mired down in bureaucratic crap, and the military will get the short end of the stick because of it: Besides, any opinion on what will happen with the JSF procurement is still speculation, as we have no way of knowing exactly what Parliament will look like in 10-15 years...

Went from 5 billion to 9 billion after the end of the fiscal year, so they are forced to use the majority of that for debt reduction correct? So by law they can't even touch the extra money they found except use it to pay down the debt.

True: however, big-ticket defence procurements like naval vessels are usually spread out over several fiscal years anyway...

[brianeyci]

Point taken, however it's still reasonable to assume the JSF procurement will be mired down in bureaucratic crap, and the military will get the short end of the stick because of it: Besides, any opinion on what will happen with the JSF procurement is still speculation, as we have no way of knowing exactly what Parliament will look like in 10-15 years...

Well the last sentence pretty much sums up my opinion as well. Will our CF-18's last until then? Pathetic how we had to go around begging for spare parts in Kosovo.

True: however, big-ticket defence procurements like naval vessels are usually spread out over several fiscal years anyway...

Yes, but optics is everything. If the Liberal government announced a $10 billion dollar carrier and military revitalization program, critics would be quick to pounce on it despite the fact that the program was being spread over several years. You can spread over years beefing up the military by announcing each item separately, but a carrier is a carrier and you can't really split it. The Liberals focused on social reform this time around with National Daycare Program and so on, and they won (although barely). There's bound to be cost overruns, 10 billion dollars sounds like a good figure given that Canada doesn't have a history of carrier procurement.

Brian

[Sea Skimmer]

Come one, the Royal Navy being inferior to the Frogs? It's a travesty! Hell, they barely have any capital ships left.

And I must say, the Frogs could beat the Royal Navy.

Probably the French would send the Royal Navy surface fleet and carriers to the bottom with a hail of Rafale launched Exocets. But, the Royal navy would probably prevail in the long run through the triumph of its submarines. The French don't build good SSN's and while they're latest SSBN's seem fairly good, the older ones had horrible reliability and maintenance schedules. With six boats they couldn't keep one constantly at sea, while the Royal Navy kept one out with four and could have kept two out with five.

Combined with the generally average nature of the French escort fleet and we have a recipe for a total defeat. The British would probably lose some of their subs, espically sending the carrier down. But they'll go through the French surface forces terribly fast. There just isn't an easy way of protecting surface ships once torpedoes are in the water coming for them, and a single hit might as well be certainly lethal. The British surface fleet, if it wasn't swamped with missiles would be better off though, since its filled with extremely well equipped (basically the worlds best, though also expensive as hell) ASW escorts in the form of Type 23 frigates.

In any case, in a real war land based airforces would come into play and Tornados and soon Eurofighters could cover the British surface fleet. The F.3 is a horribul fighter and an unimpressive interceptor but it can still at least fly up and fling lots of missiles at radar conacts. The GR.4 with Storm Shadow cruise missiles ought to be very nasty against surface ships, and the French only have a very few dedicated AAW escorts, armed only with a single Mk.13 launcher for SM-1 each.

[Stuart Mackey]

So when did the Royal Navy, which has kept Britain's shores its own for centuries, become this shrunken waste of a thing? snip

Around the same time they started to run out of money.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

And I must say, the Frogs could beat the Royal Navy.

You assume the Brits dont 'Copenhagen' the Frogs first