Telegraph Article - Royal Navy to be cut in half

[YorkieBen]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../05/navy05.xml

Gee thanks Messr Blair and Brown

We will soon have a smaller navy than the French, whose global commitments are far smaller.

[pollaxe]

Shocking, isn't it?


Well I suppose it'd be more shocking if they didn't have such a track record. Bloody awful.

[badass]

Depends really. If we weren't constantly meddling in the affiars of others without UN mandates we wouldn't need such a large navy. Who cares if anyone has a bigger navy as long as we aren't at risk of being invaded.
What is wrong is that its not just downsizing, its the lack of spedning on things that are breaking and affecting the quality of life of our armed forces and putting them in danger.

[IBM]

Right down the middle? Won't they sink?

[99Flake]

This is precisely the reason I want a conservative government back in power. They stand for British traditions such as the Chusrh (not that I am religious), land owners and other such British treasures and (as someone who has a RN commission) I see the RN as the hight of British tradition.

Not only that but they are pivitol in anti-drugs, piracy and search and rescue. Without a surface fleet these operations would become impossible. I would like to not that the submarine fleet is notable by its absence in these cuts, this is because they are 1st line defence. We are a hated country around the world. A sub is a sign of belligerence and as such is an active form of defence.

I do not advicate violence or war but this cost cutting is the last straw, the Royal Navy is the senior service and as such should be given the respect it deserves.

[pollaxe]

^The trouble is the Tories were perfectly happy to take the knife out for defence cuts too.. they're all as bad as each other IMHO..

[coco]

This is precisely the reason I want a conservative government back in power.

Yeah right, just like the 1981 John Nott review which would have decimated the RN if it had not been for the Argies invading the Falklands.
Guess the navy is paying the cost for Tony Liars little wars in the middle east.
I just hope that country doesn't pay the price when the senior service is no longer here to protect our maritime nation

[GeorgeTuk]

Badass,

I think as a 'first world' country cash rich, a stable political, excellent resources, experience and skills, we are often looked upon to provide assistance to poorer less stable countries owing to the fact our country is a success. The only country currently we could be seen to be 'meddling' in would be Iraq but many of the reasons behind that conflict were an international pressure to remove a threat which the UK and US believed to threatening their interests, in hindsight we now know that it was not the threat we thought it was. But that should not take away from the good work our armed forces do in other areas. Look at our stabilising influence in Sierra Leone, our rescue work recently in Pakistan, our ability to rescue members of a stricken submarine, our action in Afghanistan to prevent the return of terrorism and the stabilising of their country. Also the Royal Navy man the fishing waters, work in prevention of piracy on the seas, and also have a large influence in the crack down in drug smuggling all over the world.

The problem with not having a large navy is that we then lose the ability to deploy our troops where they are needed at short notice, we lose the ability to adequatley defend our land forces, and also lose the ability to defend British citizens and interests world-wide. Not forgetting the Royal Navy have some of the best trained and experienced units in the World namely the Royal Marines and the Special Boat Squadron, without the use of these forces our convential land forces lose access to a whole range of tactical options.

Having said all that I am not sure that this article shows the fuller picture. While there are ships being moth-balled this has happened worlwide since the Cold War ended, what it doesn't say is in the detail, Type 22 is a very old and technically does not have the modern capability. Also the Type 45 purchase was reduced by 2 quite some time ago which was not only done to save costs but with the additional 2 it could be argued that we would be over specified in that area.

And this whole article fails to look at the future of our commitments in any real details, such as our likely reduction of the force in Iraq in 2007 which will save a considerable cost and also the likely increase in NATO partners adding forces to Afghanistan. It also does not mention the pressure on almost every Western power has on their armed forces at a time of high deployment.

It seems to me this whole article is a string of facts strung together to make comment and does not quote a single named Navy figure or defence source in response to the article in response to the article or facts presented, maybe they will come buried in page 10 tomorrow.

[custor]

This is precisely the reason I want a conservative government back in power. They stand for British traditions such as the Chusrh (not that I am religious), land owners and other such British treasures and (as someone who has a RN commission) I see the RN as the hight of British tradition.

Not only that but they are pivitol in anti-drugs, piracy and search and rescue. Without a surface fleet these operations would become impossible. I would like to not that the submarine fleet is notable by its absence in these cuts, this is because they are 1st line defence. We are a hated country around the world. A sub is a sign of belligerence and as such is an active form of defence.

I do not advicate violence or war but this cost cutting is the last straw, the Royal Navy is the senior service and as such should be given the respect it deserves.

The royal Navy was cut in strength by OVER HALF during the last Conservative government. Any grand standing about how the Conservatives are behind traditions of the RN are completely misplaced.

EDIT
Beaton to it by several posters.

[blueball]

... the Royal Navy is the senior service and as such should be given the respect it deserves.

You should know that respect is earned and not deserved!

Regards, an ex Crab

[pollaxe]

BB's just jealous he missed out on rum, sodomy and the lash.. unless he was a Rock Ape, in which case, ignore this post!

[GeorgeTuk]

. I would like to not that the submarine fleet is notable by its absence in these cuts, this is because they are 1st line defence. We are a hated country around the world. A sub is a sign of belligerence and as such is an active form of defence.

Sorry to semi-troll but we are not a 'hated' country more that at current alot of people disagree strongly with our foreign policy however it does not affect our stance with countries on other matters, and in time (and perhaps a chnage of Prime Minister) this will revert back to our previous status.

The absence of submarines is because they are budgeted in a seperate manner, costs are not disclosed and nor are the submarine fleets operational commitments. Submarines are not seen as 'billigerent' whether in a report form or in physical presence, the Trident submarine fleet do not disclose their presence at any time during operations and most countries have no fear as they realise the low likelyhood of their use. The non-nuclear submarine fleet are no different to the other 6 or so Navys that include a similar ableit smaller fleet.

[YorkieBen]

George - we no longer have any non-nuclear attack subs, we got rid of them despite us needing them (non-nuke subs are smaller and as such can operate in shallower waters - such as those around the UK).

We need a decent size navy for several reasons - project power and influence, we also have several standing duties around the world including a standing force in the North Atlantic (NATO), in the Persian Gulf, the Falklands, in the Caribbean (drugs interdication and hurricane assistance). In addition we rely heavily on imports/international trade (especially as we are now a net importer of oil and gas) and piracy and terrorism are growing threats on the high seas

There is a saying: "If you want peace prepare for war"

You cant (although Tony and Gordon think you can) run down the military and then suddenly say 'Hey we need you'

Although there are no threats on the horizon in 10 years time there could easily be and by that time it might be too late - in 1929 no-one thought WW2 would happen. Co-incidently as a proportion of GDP our defence spending is at its lowest level since then.

In addition less ships = more time away from home for sailors = less people want to be in the forces.

People seem to forget we are an Island nation. The reason I mentioned the French is that we need a navy more than them - we have many more commitments and rely far more on the 'freedom of the seas' than most other nations.

For example we could not retake the Falklands now - even though it has never been Argentinian and everyone there wants to be (and are) British citizens.

[99Flake]

The absence of submarines is because they are budgeted in a seperate manner, costs are not disclosed and nor are the submarine fleets operational commitments. Submarines are not seen as 'billigerent' whether in a report form or in physical presence.

Actually costs are disclosed, at last count the government valued HMS Victorious, Vigilent and Vengeance at £2.4 Billion. This does not however include Vanguard, our 4th Vanguard class sub as it was undergoing refit and as such was an unknown quantity. If you want to check my figures just look in the Telegraph over the past 2 weeks (I can't remember the specific day).

As for Belligerence, I have to dissagree, sorry but this is just a point of view. Any craft capable of navigating the world unseen and unheard whilst carrying the ability to annihilate most of the worlds cities IS seen as belligerent. It is a reason why so many people call for the scrapping of Trident and its successor.

I personally don't see them as belligerent or aggressive per se, I see them as a detterrent. However I understand the wider view on the vessels.

[badass]

We need a decent size navy for several reasons - project power and influence,

Ahhhh you mean to intimidate others? Please justify that as a good reason to spend billions that can be spent elsewhere.

In addition less ships = more time away from home for sailors = less people want to be in the forces.

I would expect it to be teh exact opposite - you can only fit so many sailors on one boat. The rest'll have to be on land

For example we could not retake the Falklands now - even though it has never been Argentinian and everyone there wants to be (and are) British citizens.

Yes we could - we'd just have to abandon some of our other commitments.

[GeorgeTuk]

Sorry YorkieBen but maybe we are getting our wires crossed, there is still the Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class submarines in service which amongst other things has poff-shore strike capability, anti-submarine and anti-surface capability, survellience and recon abilities.

As for your other points, I agree especially with the run down cheaper military that we suddenly look at Iraq, equipment shortages, extended troop deployments, and reduced cpability in other areas.