The state of the Navy..

[Kwackerz]

Is looking like it will be getting worse..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... navy05.xml

Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure.

Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.

The Government has admitted that 13 unnamed warships are in a state of reduced readiness, putting them around 18 months away from active service. Today The Daily Telegraph can name a further six destroyers and frigates that are being proposed for cuts.

A need to cut the defence budget by £250 million this year to meet spending requirements has forced ministers to look at drastic measures.

MoD sources have admitted it is possible that the Royal Navy will discontinue one of its major commitments around the world at a time when Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has said more ships are needed to protect the high seas against terrorism and piracy.

News of further cuts to what was once the world's most formidable fleet comes as critics say failings across the Services are becoming increasingly apparent.

More details are emerging of the near-squalor that soldiers are forced to tolerate in barracks when they return from six months of dangerous overseas operations.

Questions have also been raised about the poor pay for troops and equipment failures which continue to dog operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The six warships to be mothballed are the Type 22 frigates Cumberland, Chatham, Cornwall and Campbeltown and two Type 42 destroyers Southampton and Exeter.

It is likely that they will eventually be sold or scrapped. There are also fears in the Admiralty that two new aircraft carriers, promised in 1998, might never be built.

Meanwhile the French navy, which will be far superior to the Royal Navy after the cuts, will announce before the April presidential elections that a new carrier will be built.

Two of eight advanced air defence Type 45 destroyers on the Navy's order books will not be bought, defence sources said. The order is already six months behind schedule and £157 million over budget.

A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us."

Defence sources said it would be unlikely that the Navy could now launch an armada of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands in 1982.

Steve Bush, editor of the monthly magazine Warship World, said the MoD was bankrupt following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"After 10 years of Labour government, the Royal Navy is on its knees without immediate and proper funding. I cannot see how it can recover —especially if Mr Brown becomes the next prime minister," he said.

There are already reports that ships on operations are ignoring faults to weapons systems in order to save money but will spend cash if it is a health and safety issue.

The Navy is expected to lose one of its three carriers, Invincible, which has been laid up in Portsmouth. One of the three major ports is also under threat of closure. It is believed that the historic Navy headquarters of Portsmouth is most vulnerable.

Two unnamed mine counter-measure vessels and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers, Brambleleaf and Oakleaf, are also under threat.

Adam Ingram, the defence minister, admitted in a Parliamentary answer last month that 13 ships were at sea with 18 in port at 48 hours notice to deploy. The decision to tie up another six frigates will mean the Navy has just 25 warships left. This would mean giving up a major commitment such as the anti-drugs and hurricane support role in the Caribbean.

To protect Britain from attack today, the country has the frigates Monmouth and Montrose available with the carrier Ark Royal about to re-enter service after a lengthy refit.

The MoD said yesterday that it had no plans to cut the destroyer and frigate fleet but it "routinely reviewed" defence capabilities "to ensure resources are directed where our front line Armed Forces need them most".

A spokesman said: "We are some way from any decisions and just because a proposal is looked at does not mean that it will be implemented"

A final decision on the cuts is expected next month.

[Gio]

How long before the navy will be a collection of rubber boats?

[Samray]

Partially at least just "sensational" journalism, aka spin, aka mistrial by media?
Isn't the MOD still building modern ships as well as laying up classic antiques?

[Kwackerz]

Yup.. however those numbers HAVE been reduced greatly from what was deemed as required

[Samray]

The first 6 words set the credibility level.
Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday

Two petty Officers on their hands and knees acting like lions?

[lazarus]

You have to question what the navy is for these days. If, for example, we were at war with the French or the Krauts we no longer have the merchant fleet to supply us nor the industry to make weapons. With a pop approaching 70 million we could be starved into surrender - or maybe we would have to fight a guerilla war of the sort that has defeated the Yanks twice over. We certainly couldnt do a WW2 again.

The point I'm getting at is that I dont see the need for a Navy in home defence - and my hobby is sailing so I have a prejudice in favour rather than against. The danger with our forces is that we combine relative lack of money with MOD ambitions to have the latest all singing all dancing toys. Then we buy British rather than off the shelf from the Yanks. So we end up with far too few "assets" to be effective anyway - and thats when they work. The RAF is an example of that.

I reckon we need a ground up re-think. What do we want the forces to do? Are we really bothered about hurricane relief in the windies? Do we really need the latest frigate to do that if we are? And do we need the armageddon of the Trident subs when we really know we can never use them?

And as for the Army, WTF are we doing in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or even Cyprus. Why do we have troops stationed in Germany? To help the Krauts save money maybe? Where are our direct interests here? What use are tanks in Basra?

Why cant we settle back to being a minor European country and mind our own business?

[Kwackerz]

The Navy are active as fek!!

Remember the ship-borne evacuation of Lebabnon? There's been others as well..

Remember the Cruise ship hit by Pirates? Llloyds of London have increased lots of shipping's insurance costs and deemed areas as War zones.. etc. The Royal Navy now has to patrol those areas to 'look' after' British Interests in those Areas.

Multinational stuff.. the Navy is committed to loads of Joint exercises, patrol jobs alles uber the place.

Patrolling the Ascension and falkland Islands.. another crucial job


The Navy may not currently be in the limelight, but it is an active and busy part of the British Armed Forces

What are we doing in Cyprus? Same as Gibraltar!!! Cyprus and Gibraltar are Key places with regards deployments to other areas. The sovereign base areas are crucial for us to be able to operate as we do. Lose either of those and you're in deep do-do.

Germany? Because a. it's cheaper than keeping them in UK and b. it gives us yet another staging post for operations. Key equipment can be kept a lot closer to the middle east with it being in Germany. It would take 2 weeks to deploy kit to Germany for onward transmission. We can keep deployable troops and equipments there, ready to go by rail or airhead movement, even sea movement should the need arise. We can even jump onto US transport from there. it's harder to do from the UK.

Even if we did settle down, etc, we still need to keep these areas going. It's crucial for 'other stuff' as well as stuff that can be discussed openly.

[BikerGran]

By the time the govt has finished deconstructing Britain we won't need any armed forces as there will be nothing to defend.

That's an exaggeration - maybe - but it's not without foundation.

[Kwackerz]

Naah.. We'll just hand the keys over to the invading nation, give 'em a heads up on Milton Keynes and run away.

[Gio]

Naah.. We'll just hand the keys over to the invading nation, give 'em a heads up on Milton Keynes and run away.

You should have added Slough and Southall

[lazarus]

The Navy are active as fek!!

Remember the ship-borne evacuation of Lebabnon? There's been others as well..

Remember the Cruise ship hit by Pirates? Llloyds of London have increased lots of shipping's insurance costs and deemed areas as War zones.. etc. The Royal Navy now has to patrol those areas to 'look' after' British Interests in those Areas.

Multinational stuff.. the Navy is committed to loads of Joint exercises, patrol jobs alles uber the place.

Patrolling the Ascension and falkland Islands.. another crucial job


The Navy may not currently be in the limelight, but it is an active and busy part of the British Armed Forces

What are we doing in Cyprus? Same as Gibraltar!!! Cyprus and Gibraltar are Key places with regards deployments to other areas. The sovereign base areas are crucial for us to be able to operate as we do. Lose either of those and you're in deep do-do.

Germany? Because a. it's cheaper than keeping them in UK and b. it gives us yet another staging post for operations. Key equipment can be kept a lot closer to the middle east with it being in Germany. It would take 2 weeks to deploy kit to Germany for onward transmission. We can keep deployable troops and equipments there, ready to go by rail or airhead movement, even sea movement should the need arise. We can even jump onto US transport from there. it's harder to do from the UK.

Even if we did settle down, etc, we still need to keep these areas going. It's crucial for 'other stuff' as well as stuff that can be discussed openly.

Kwaks - thats the classic "world power" type answer to the question. The Russians could have said something very similar. But it doesnt answer the questions at all.

The Germans propser, but they dont have troops overseas. Same with the Japs and the Scandinavians and the Spanish and the Italians. Us and the French are the only Euro countries that feel the need to behave as if we still had Empire. Which I suppose we have if you can call Gib and Bermuda "Empire".

We dont need troops in Germany because we dont need staging posts because we dont need "operations". Or to put it another way, I'm sure you are right if you accept that we are going to send troops to serve in dirty and distant places. Personally I dont think we have that need. Its delusions of grandeur to think we have.

[Kwackerz]

I'm sure you are right if you accept that we are going to send troops to serve in dirty and distant places.

It tends to be fact more than fiction nowadays. Soldiers deploy, Sailors deploy, Airmen deploy wherever the Government of the day decide.

Unfortunately the years since the Second world war havent seen a move away from 'taking it to the enemy' and momentum has been maintained. It doesnt change with the Governments, this has been proven time and time again. It doesnt change with campaigns by the anti war mob, it doesnt change with deaths on the battlefield. Until such a time as that all changes, there's still a need for all ive mentioned.

The Germans prosper, but they dont have troops overseas. Same with the Japs and the Scandinavians and the Spanish and the Italians.

Germany:

You need to research that.. seriously.. you have a very wrong view of European military commitments.

http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2 ... -missions/

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep20 ... -s14.shtml

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 68,00.html

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?164376

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... irna02.htm

Would you like me to continue?

Japan:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 399163.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/deployment ... ps-to-iraq

More??

Scandanavia:

Scandinavia is a historical and geographical region centered on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe. It is most commonly defined as the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, with Finland and Iceland sometimes included as well.

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?155529

http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/ar ... F/3862.pdf

Italians?

http://cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/02/l ... sitesearch

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20030 ... 6680.shtml

Spanish???

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... lition.htm

http://cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/01/l ... sitesearch

http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/analisis/984.asp

I suggest you research that lot yourself a bit more, there's scandanavians everywhere, as well as the others.. Belgium.. Romania? Those links were a 5 min search. there will no doubt be more deployments of a non- media reported nature.

Ive not even searched past 'Troop deployments'. I didnt look for foreign Airforce and Navy deployments as such

Even if we did settle down, etc, we still need to keep these areas going. It's crucial for 'other stuff' as well as stuff that can be discussed openly.

We also support other nations and their own 'special' stuff... But as we have the foothold, they come to us.. not the other way round..

[lazarus]

You're scratching for crumbs there Kwaks. They are token deployments, often of non combattants as in

"Japan had sent peacekeepers to Cambodia and East Timor, but its 550 troops in the southern Iraqi city of Samawa are the first it has deployed since 1945 to a country where there is active fighting.

They are barred by Japan's US-imposed pacifist constitution from firing their weapons except in self-defence" . The German ship off Lebanon is a spy ship and again non combattant because the German population wont countenance military adventures overseas.

But whatever view you take of these examples, the issue isnt whether you need the forces / bases to do this sort of deployment but whether you need to do these deployments at all. I dont believe we do and I can see a lot of other things we could better spend the money on. Defence forces are for defenbding the UK, but we have no credible threat to us. So instead you are sent to places where we have no strategic interest whatsoever so that Tony can say to Jaques " of course, my friend (gritted teath) we are playing a role in supporting the democratic government (there's a joke) of Iraq / Afghanistan/ Belize / Cyprus etc.

Why else would you want 2 aircraft carriers, ships that could be destroyed in one nuclear blast by a serious oponent.

[Samray]

but we have no credible threat to us. So instead you are sent to places where we have no strategic interest whatsoever

We may have long since relinquished the title of empire , but we still own half the world.
It's just this island that we're selling off to the continentals.

[Gio]

but we still own half the world.

Russia, Canada and China thumb their noses at us, we own nothing there and they constitute over half the planets land mass