Telegraph Article - Royal Navy to be cut in half

[fishboy25uk]

not according to my mate who is an officer on a T22...

Ok, but my point was that these ships are now consuming large resources to keep them afloat. They do sail but then need to spend lots of time alongside.

I just get frustrated because while there are some valid points on this thread (like yours YorkieBen) it is clear that many people have absolutely no idea what the RN really does and its importance, and their views are formed by very sparse media coverage and hearsay from whatever source.

[JPreston]

Becuase Liberia has a huge merchant navy. Liberia and Panama have many ships under its flag (it is a flag of convinience)

Right, so why do we need to protect ships that sail under it any more than does the aforementioned Liberian Navy? Do you worry that pirates will blockade the UK and not allow the Chinese ships through, and the Chinese with their pitiful military will be powerless? The threat is that countries we depend on for import of food, oil and goods will stop exporting for one reason or another. What use is the navy then?

How NATO helped stop the conflict, or how the UN bottled it or how it could have become a far wider conflict?

Really I'd be interested to hear your perspective. Because as I recall the UK opposed the UN recognising the new states from the outset, which rather precluded any useful intervention. Germany was the greatest campaigner for recognition and shortly the civilian populations recieved arms to defend against the federal army. The US began to provide useful bombing support but no significant ground troops. UNPROFOR was denied a clear remit by the Security Council as a whole but especially the UK, and the whole situation was contained to play out to it's natural conclusion with little outside intervention. So tell me how the UK Navy was significant, or how the conflict could have been far wider?

Your thinking is incorrect.

Well definitely I read this a year or so ago (most likely in the Independent because clearly I am a tree-hugging sandal-wearer) in the context of why the UK pulls its pants down for the US. I.e. rather than a question of who is a poodle, how much of the economy hinges on exports to the US and the fact that were diplomatic relations to reach the point that 90% of the UK would like to see them reach, then we would have the expense of suddenly having to commission an independent nuclear deterrent of our own.

And the next quotes are not my own, blah blah blah until with respect to chariot regiments:

...So you are saying we no longer need a navy?

I think it's obvious that at some point politics and technology will make the navy increasingly, and ultimately completely and permanently, redundant. In the same way that now the Cold War is over we don't plan for a battle between 200,000 tanks across Poland you could ask do we still need tanks? A few, yeah cos tanks are pretty awesome. But 100,000? No longer appropriate to the threats we will face in future.

And anyway if one actually reads the article (crazy I know):

...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"

...so in a week when we hear that the Army has to contend with both a lack of basic equipment in Iraq and really quite dirty sinks in the UK, why should the idea that the MOD is considering distributing funds in a more useful manner cause so much mouth-frothing and knicker-staining?

[fishboy25uk]

I think it's obvious that at some point politics and technology will make the navy increasingly, and ultimately completely and permanently, redundant.

I'm nearly lost for words to be honest. Please explain to us unenlightened war-mongering righties your divine technological plans for combatting the ever increasing threat of international piracy, the ongoing drugs war, terrorism, disaster relief, protection of our overseas colonies and numerous other roles the RN provides.

I bet you'll want it wind-powered and made from recycled cardboard...

[JPreston]

I'm nearly lost for words to be honest. Please explain to us unenlightened war-mongering righties your divine technological plans for combatting the ever increasing threat of international piracy, the ongoing drugs war, terrorism, disaster relief, protection of our overseas colonies and numerous other roles the RN provides.

I bet you'll want it wind-powered and made from recycled cardboard...

There you go, just because I happen to agree with the MOD allocating its funds as appropriate to today's world and current and future threats, it obviously means that I want the defence budget to be diverted to lesbian basket-weavers and panda bears

I realise that you don't have an interest in the military because you believe there should be universal access to healthcare and education, but you can still be polite can't you?

[fishboy25uk]

There you go, just because I happen to agree with the MOD allocating its funds as appropriate to today's world and current and future threats, it obviously means that I want the defence budget to be diverted to lesbian basket-weavers and panda bears

I realise that you don't have an interest in the military because you believe there should be universal access to healthcare and education, but you can still be polite can't you?

Congrats, JPreston, your most bizarre post yet. I'm assuming your last sentence is tongue in cheek because you thinking that an ex RN officer would have no interest in the military is just bonkers.

I didn't mean to sound impolite - just trying to lighten the mood - but how can you say that at least in our lifetime we will not need a navy? How do you think troops would ever get to a conflict zone without air access? Navy. How are most of our supplies bought to conflict zones? Navy. How did we launch all our tomahawk missiles in the Iraq conflict and others? Navy. How would we maintain air superiority in any conflict without airstrips? Navy. A virtually undetectable nuclear deterrent? Navy....you get the picture.

The RN does need to modernise and find a new role but we will always always have a need one. I would agree, reluctantly, the maybe the Army needs the cash more at the moment but we will never neglect the navy altogether.

[Gerrard]

I have to agree with what fishboy and R3MF are saying myself. The RN is using ships that were built to combat the Soviets, and as such, are not quite as flexible in "peace-time operations" that they now do. Not to say they don't do a damn good job at it, just that they are not as efficient at it as new vessels could be.

The new subs as a nuclear deterrent will always be needed unfortunately, and giving them up would mean either relying on America or France to provide cover. The 2 new carriers will also give the navy a decent offensive and flexible firepower that I feel the current Harriers don't quite provide. Now that America have said they would give us the source code for the JCA, means we no longer have to think about converting the carriers to "Plan-B"; using catapults and Typhoons (although it is still in place I believe).

Whilst I can see why people would like to see this money spent else where, I also don't believe in cutting the military budget in these "uncertain times". The RAF are already going through several stages of cutting costs and becoming more effiecient, with a few stations closing, or already closed. It is only natural I suppose for this to follow onto the navy, but if this article is at all accurate, I don't see the navy keeping the same kind of capabilities that it has now.

[JPreston]

Congrats, JPreston, your most bizarre post yet. I'm assuming your last sentence is tongue in cheek because you thinking that an ex RN officer would have no interest in the military is just bonkers.

Eats, shoots and leaves. How about "I realise that you have an interest in the military, but this is not because you want people to have healthcare or education [or other 'high ideals' but rather may have a very right-wing perspective however even so you should not make ad hominim attacks on other posters]"? That is what I meant.

...The RN does need to modernise and find a new role but we will always always have a need one. I would agree, reluctantly, the maybe the Army needs the cash more at the moment but we will never neglect the navy altogether.

There you go, now that is sensible. The useful navy roles in your second post; yes we need - at the moment - a navy to fulfill those. Maybe a navy that is half its current size, why not ask the question.

As for the roles in your earlier post (Terrorism? Smuggling? Pirates? Disaster Relief? Colonies?) I will assume those were 'tongue in cheek' because other posters have already pointed out that every one of those is better addressed by spending money elsewhere. Modernisation...

[fishboy25uk]

Ok, JPreston I’m going to leave this topic now before we end up exchanging patronising remarks ad infinitum. I’m sorry if I appeared rude or offensive and I'm not trying to personally attack you, but one of my points was that from what some posters have put on here it is evident that they do not have a clear picture of what the RN does, and thus perhaps should educate themselves more before waxing lyrical about this topic. However, everyone is entitled to their opinion - I am just saddened that public understanding of the navy (and the military in general) is sometimes very flawed and that most do not appreciate how lucky we are to have sure dedicated and professional servicemen and women protecting our interests.

The answer is to modernise (and I would agree that perhaps a smaller but more capable RN might be one option), but the Navy still has and will have a relevant role in terrorism, smuggling, pirates, disaster relief and protection of our colonies to name but a few. While we as a nation and indeed a global society do need to examine how best to tackle these issues, I completely refute the view that all these problems can be solved entirely using other means. The RN works closely with many other agencies to tackle these problems currently, and this symbiotic relation will hopefully continue. Whatever people’s opinions are on this, I am confident that while I am still alive the RN will be a much different but equally as important asset to the UK.

[R3MF]

I'll admit I haven't read all of the posts on here in detail but as seemingly one of the only people on Hexus who have a good idea of what the Navy does - because seemingly I am the only ex RN member of Hexus, I'll throw my two cents in.

........................

In terms of capability what we do need are the new carriers and more of the LPD class type amphibious ships. I served on HMS Albion, an amphibious ship, so I know first hand the capabilities. The command and control capabilities of the Type 22s are not a patch compared to these ships, and to suggest the T22s should be saved for this reason is laughable. While the T45s will be technologically advanced, the money should have been safeguarded for the carriers as these are arguably most important in terms of power projection and influence. If we don’t get the new carriers we are well and truly sunk.

...........................

Sorry I haven’t addressed all the points here, but 2 or 3 posters on this thread have no idea what they are talking about and I wanted to set the record straight slightly.

I am a civvie, but have always had an interest in the armed forces, so I ask out of curiosity if my interpretation of events quoted below, you would consider to be fair and accurate?

The Gov't commissioned the Strategic Defence Review in order to find out what duties the Royal Navy would need to perform to secure the Realm, and what resources the Royal Navy would require to achieve this aim.

The SDR concluded that an escort force of 32 escort warships (destroyers, frigates, and potentially cruisers), in addition to the two proposed carriers would be necessary to achieve the desired end.
www.parliament.uk/commons...98-091.pdf
It is worth noting that we are already down to 25 escort warships, so technically the Gov't has already torn up the SDR.

During the Cold War the Royal Navy was configured primarily to contain Soviet Submarines in the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap in order that the Atlantic shipping lanes could not be closed thereby preventing Operation Reforger from shipping in vast quantities of men and materials from the US to halt a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Other primary duties included the UK's stategic deterrent, and maintainance of an ability to act globally in support of military operations.

This resulted in a very large number of specialised anti-submarine-warfare frigates (ASW),and a significant number of anti-air-warfare destroyers (AAW), which together could act as mini-flotillas for independent operations around the globe.

Currently, we have a much reduced ASW role resulting from the end of the Soviet naval threat, and a declining number of surface warships resulting from the post Cold-War 'peace-dividend'. The unhappy result of these twin problems is that Britain now has a naval force ill-configured for current duties, and too small to dispatch independent mini-flotillas for global duties.

One possible solution to this twin problem is the re-introduction of the Cruiser class to the Royal Navy, a single vessel that is large enough to provide global reach, and sufficient self-protection from submarine, surface and air threats that it can act independantly of any supporting vessels.
There was such a project under the research & development moniker of; Future Surface Combattant (FSC) which was sadly cancelled in 2004 for 'cost reasons'. I understand that it is being reconsidered for the 2020+ timeframe, arguably far too late.

At the risk of playing fantasy
-fleets I would humbly suggest the folloing force mix of surface warships as eminently achievable, and very sensible in my opinion.

08x T45 AAW Destroyers (start: now)
12x T24 ASW Frigates (start: 2012)
04x T25 C2 Frigates (start: 2014)
08x T65 Global Cruisers (start: 2018)

This would provide the 32 warships required to meet the SDR, and would do so in a flexible manner that would provide proper escorts for large carrier/amphibious task-forces, as well as maintain the Royal Navy's historic global role.

This is not an unachievable goal, in fact it is both eminently achievable and utterly essential. Why then do we pursue this ridiculous notion of an anti-terrorist coastguard?

I fully accept your point that the Albion class can take on the role of C2 currently performed by the remaining T22's.
I am willing to accept the assessment of the SDR that we require 32 escort warships, therefore I would suggest that the number of cruisers be increased from 8 to 12.
If one works on the premise of a maximum surge of two carrier groups and two amphib groups then that still allows for each to have two AAW destroyers, and three ASW frigates, so i see no point in increasing the numbers of these specialised escorts.

regards

[GeorgeTuk]

Another one that dishes out insults to people he disagrees with. They say a lot more about you than they do about me.
Would you say that to someones face. I doubt it somehow. If so, why say it in a forum?

Fair point, sorry.

I have to say I am normally quite reserved but the post made me a little angry.