Royal Navy weakness

[Freedom06]

Has the RN ever been weaker? We have to wait until 2012 earliest before we have any serious Carriers, the Typer 45 is years away also, we have scrapped the Sea Harrier and now we can't send more than 1 frigate to the blockade! Does anyone know the political situation in Argentina, beacause there would be no better time than now to strike ( what with Royal Marines also tied up in Arghanistan..)

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wnkorea116.xml


"Navy taskforce will be forced to rely on France and America

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 16/10/2006)

Drastic cutbacks in spending on the Royal Navy during the past decade means commanders are struggling to assemble a task force to participate in the UN-sanctioned blockade of North Korea.

Navy chiefs have also expressed deep concern about their ability to defend their ships against a hostile missile or fighter threat after a decision was enforced six months ago to scrap the Sea Harrier fighter. Ships will be entirely reliant on the American or French navies to provide "beyond visual range" air defence with aircraft carriers.

The Navy has been cut by almost a third since Labour came to power and commanders believe that any British contribution would amount to one or two ships. While the Navy has operational experience of interdicting drugs and arms smugglers in the Gulf and Caribbean, its resources are severely limited.



Since 1997, the number of frigates and destroyers has shrunk from 35 to 25 warships, one of three aircraft carriers has been taken out of service and the hunter killer submarine force has been cut by two boats to 10. There are 38,000 sailors in the Navy.

The Government was publicly warned that 25 frigates and destroyers were inadequate for the demands being made on the Fleet by the recently retired First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West.

"We need far more hulls for what they want us to do," a senior Navy officer told The Daily Telegraph. "We cannot be in all these places at once. I am staggered that the Government is trying to make this commitment when it knows what our Armed Forces are going through."

Ministry of Defence sources said that because the UN resolution required an international effort "any contribution by us would be looked at" and deploying a warship was "always a possibility".

The Foreign Office said it would be liaising with its security council partners this week "to discuss the practical implementation of the resolution".

A frigate would be able to carry out stop and search missions with its helicopters and armed boarding parties. A Trafalgar or Swiftsure class submarine could also be used to covertly gather intelligence off the North Korean coast.

But without the Sea Harriers the ships will be vulnerable to attack if there are no US Navy Aegis class ships in the area. "Without Sea Harrier we are screwed and we cannot really protect ourselves adequately from the missile threat," the Navy officer said.

The Fleet will not have adequate air defence until the first Type 45 destroyer enters service in three years.

Richard Scott, the Navy editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, said recent cuts had placed "far greater limitations" on the number of tasks the Navy could undertake."

[rjamesinwootton]

not just the Navy,Army and Airforce aswell

Mod has a lot to answer for what with budget overruns and poor kit...

still when have we ever given our forces the best.....?Tory or Labour..

i'm sure they are all well versed in equal opps and gender equality though like any future opponents...i'll shut up now as i'm starting to rant

[oldsoak]

Some of those cuts were directed at taking obsolescent kit out of circulation. What a lot of people dont appreciate is that the cost of new build warships is very high indeed. The hulls are cheap enough ( ship steel is the cheapest part of a new warship ) , but the electronics are horrendous. The size of most RN production runs are small and a lot of the kit is UK only so there is little in the way of economies of scale. There is simply not the money in the kitty to fund everything , fight two wars AND get involved in the run up to a third. Anyway, with all our other deployments and cries of overstretch , why the heck are we going to get involved in N Korea ? Dont people realise that the RN of today is not the RN of the Korean war ?
Funnily enough, Labour traditionally supported ships for the the RN - because they employed steel workers and dockyard workers which was where a lot of trade union members were.

[Hydro]

The MoD has to realise that the British military cannot survive on fond memories of the strength of days gone by.

The military needs much more money if the Goverment wants to get involved in these little foreign adventures and prove that the UK is still a world player. We need to get more folk interested in joining the military - maybe some kind of benefits like in the US, with University paid for and so on. The military is not seen as a viable career any more.

The system needs a good long hard look at itself if its to get sorted out. If Tony wants to fight three wars, then Tony needs to ensure the resources are there.

[Freedom06]

It seems as if Tony Blairs' eyes are bigger than his stomach when it comes to intervening in world affairs- I think the doctrine of 'Less is More' i.e trying to punch above your weight and investing in fewer ( but better) ships, smaller army, less aircraft only works when you are not trying to be 'United States team B.....'

[bluffcove]

The Falklands have been exposed for the last 10 years.
Ships from trade is a dream - the resident force is Crabs and TA effectively. Thie idea was to rush troops down when the first Argies came in. Rushing down from a garrison town in the Uk is easier than rushing down from Iraq or Afg.

Few worrying statistics that prove Tony is Moron.

Defence spending is less than 3% of GDP. The Lowest since 1930.
In 1930 we had been scaling back forces for 10 years.
Tony has sent British troops to war more frequently than any PM in the last century. with six engagements in seven years - prior to Iraq and the heightened condition in Helmland.

The British army has always been famed for doing so much with so little that it is now being asked to do everything with nothing.

Blair wants to be known as a great international statesman which is probably why hes purposefully undercutting hte military so that he can make a "soundbite" version of Winny C's "the Few" speech.

[oldsoak]

Originally Posted by bluffcove

The Falklands have been exposed for the last 10 years.
Ships from trade is a dream - the resident force is Crabs and TA effectively. Thie idea was to rush troops down when the first Argies came in. Rushing down from a garrison town in the Uk is easier than rushing down from Iraq or Afg.

Few worrying statistics that prove Tony is Moron.

Defence spending is less than 3% of GDP. The Lowest since 1930.
In 1930 we had been scaling back forces for 10 years.
Tony has sent British troops to war more frequently than any PM in the last century. with six engagements in seven years - prior to Iraq and the heightened condition in Helmland.

The British army has always been famed for doing so much with so little that it is now being asked to do everything with nothing.

Blair wants to be known as a great international statesman which is probably why hes purposefully undercutting hte military so that he can make a "soundbite" version of Winny C's "the Few" speech.

UK is one of the biggest spenders in Europe in terms of GDP on defense. Germany, for instance, spends 1.4% - and its larger in terms of population and land mass than us.
TB has been pm for 7 years because he was re-elected in that time. If we were to compare 7 years - say, 1951-58, the UK was involved in Korea, Aden, Suez, Rafdan, Cyprus, Kenya and Malaya. Its simply very difficult to have the commitments we have and NOT be involved in either covert ops or all out punch ups. I dont really think TB is trying to soundbite version of WC's speech. Thats a little far fetched.
l

[bluffcove]

I was being flippant I agree.

However he has been asking our forces / offering our forces, at a fairly frequent rate and not been putting money into the system in equal measure. Germany's commitments are lesser than ours and is constitutionally obliged to keep its forces on a short leash.

nothing hcanges the fact that spending is the lowest its ever been in 70 years, yet we are busier now than the last time it was this low.

[annihilation]

I love how politicians cut the budget of the military and then expect them to carry out UN peace keeping around the world with there limited resources. Got to love that ****.

[bluffcove]

Un peacekeeping is one thing.

Un-necessary ill thought out wars with minimal public support or funding - thats just neue Arbiet.

[Demigod-17]

in an ideal world we'd have 4% military spending (around 90bn USD) and more than 300K troops and 500 MBT's with 800 warriors. but if that was the case petrol would cost 1.15 a litre and fags would be a 5.50 for 20.. and everybody else in the country would moan.

[Freedom06]

You've got to consider though what the expense in the long run would be of say AQ/Taliban succeeding in Afghanistan or North Korea developingfully nuclear missiles, or the cost in lives if the **** really hits the fan and our weakneses our exposed etc etc. Britain is one of the few countries able ( and willing) right now that has (just) the clout to make a difference in these things.... It's not a simple equation

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Demigod-17

in an ideal world we'd have 4% military spending (around 90bn USD) and more than 300K troops and 500 MBT's with 800 warriors. but if that was the case petrol would cost 1.15 a litre and fags would be a 5.50 for 20.. and everybody else in the country would moan.

That's what gas and smokes cost here in Norway. where's my empire-building army!

Not to mention a pint out on town 'll run you a good 4-5 £, however i imagine ther'd be a bloody civil war in Britain if it came to that.

[Freedom06]

Hmmmm beer @ £4, lets see..... being able to walk the street in my city centre in the evenings without stepping in piles of puke and having to side-step hordes of rowdy rat-arsed students- plus a few shiny new warships OR having to step in piles of puke and a 'crap' navy........ no contest!

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Freedom06

Hmmmm beer @ £4, lets see..... being able to walk the street in my city centre in the evenings without stepping in piles of puke and having to side-step hordes of rowdy rat-arsed students- plus a few shiny new warships OR having to step in piles of puke and a 'crap' navy........ no contest!

people still get piss drunk and do stupid stuff (like puking on the street, picking fights and getting themselves killed in fights or car accidents.) only thing is they have to pay a shyteload of cash for it.