something new?
See the link for an interesting chart:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/02/navy102.xml&page=1
Navy would struggle to fight a war – report
( 2-Dec-2007 02:57:26)
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:04am GMT 02/12/2007
The Royal Navy can no longer fight a major war because of years of under*funding and cutbacks, a leaked Whitehall report has revealed.
With an “under-resourced” fleet composed of “ageing and operationally defective ships”, the Navy would struggle even to repeat its role in the Iraq war and is now “far more vulnerable to unexpected shocks”, the top-level Ministry of Defence document says.
The report was ordered by Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, who had intended to use it to “counter criticism” on the state of the Navy in the media and from opposition parties.
But in a damning conclusion, the report states: “The current material state of the fleet is not good; the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation in accordance with current policy against a technologically capable adversary.” A medium-scale operation is similar to the naval involvement in the Iraq War.
The document adds that the Navy is too “thinly stretched”, its fighting capability is being “eroded” and the fleet’s ability to influence events at the strategic level is “under threat”.
The document’s findings come at a time of mounting pressure on the Prime Minister, who has been heavily criticised over claims that as Chancellor he failed to fund the military *adequately.
Last night, Liam Fox, the shadow Tory defence secretary, said: “We have come all the way from Lord Nelson to a part-time defence secretary, with the consequence that the Royal Navy now finds itself in the most degenerated state in which it has ever been. Labour has done what none of this countries’ enemies have been able to do: bring the Navy to its knees.”
Two weeks ago, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, a former chief of the defence staff, argued that claims of increased spending were “smoke and mirrors”, while reduced funds had left “blood on the floor” at the MoD.
Last year, Admiral Sir Alan West, a former head of the Navy who is now a government minister, gave warning that Britain would end up with a “tinpot” Navy if more money were not spent on defence. Two weeks ago, The Sunday Telegraph also revealed that General Sir Richard Dannatt had told the Government that it was “mortgaging” the goodwill of the Army.
The leaked report continues: “A combination of age and reduced spending on maintenance has resulted in today’s ships carrying a far higher number of operational defects, which directly erode operational capacity.”
The fleet, it states, is “thinly stretched”, “increasingly taut” and facing “significant risks”. Of the Navy’s international reputation, once the envy of the world, the report states: “Our diluted worldwide presence inevitably makes it harder to maintain influence in key areas of interest across the globe and has thereby reduced the Royal Navy’s overall strategic effect.”
Entitled “Royal Navy Utility Today Compared with 20 Years Ago” and dated November 1 2007, the 14-page document was drawn up by Rear-Admiral Alan Massey, the assistant chief of the naval staff and one of the services’ most influential officers.
He commanded the carrier Ark Royal, the Navy’s flagship, during the Iraq War, for which he was made a CBE. A high-flier, Rear-Adm Massey is seen by many as the future head of the Senior Service.
Although the report says the newest ships in today’s Navy are more capable than ever, it adds: “Other navies, including potential adversaries, have also increased their numbers and capabilities and this offsets many of our gains.”
It continues: “Over the last 20 years the strategic situation has seen a shift from a relatively stable bipolar world to an era of more diverse security threats.
“Thus the reduction in the number of platforms [ships] now significantly fetters our ability to maintain previous levels of influence, deterrence, coercion and defence diplomacy in peacetime and times of tension.”
The document recommends that the Navy Board, which comprises the services’ most senior officers, should note that the Navy’s “strategic effect has been adversely impacted” by a reduction in ship numbers over the past 20 years, from a fleet of 136 in 1987 to 75 today.
The number of destroyers and frigates, the Navy’s workhorses, has been reduced from 54 to 25 and the average age of those vessels is now 17 years old, compared with 10 and 12 years old in 1997 and 1987 respectively. The report also reveals that there has been a 66 per cent reduction in the number of submarines, from 38 to 13, and that the Navy’s manpower has fallen from 66,500 sailors in 1987 to 38,860.
The report states: “The most striking difference is in the numbers of units operating in home waters. In 1987 there were 35 destroyers, frigates and submarines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships at sea around the UK, compared with only 10 in 2007.”
It goes on: “In order to maintain delivery of effect [conduct operations] against a backdrop of decreasing resources, significant risk is being taken against certain areas. Our anti-submarine warfare capability is below a prudent minimum level of both quality and quantity.”
One of the positive notes in the report concerns the future carrier programme, which, it states, will enhance the ability of the Navy to contribute to joint operations. The report says: “The introduction of CVF [carrier vessel future], coupled with the Joint Combat Aircraft, will mark a significant step forward for defence and will provide the UK with considerable global political military leverage.
“This capability therefore offers significant effectiveness and leverage at the political/diplomatic level, as well as providing the joint commander with highly effective air power without the potential difficulties of operating from bases on foreign soil.”
An MoD spokesman said: “We don’t comment on leaked documents. The Government values the Royal Navy greatly and has invested billions of pounds in new Type 45s [destroyers], Astute submarines and Trident submarines, and has made the decision to order two new aircraft carriers.”
Key findings of Royal Navy report
• Funding shortfall is “eroding” Navy’s fighting capability
• Fleet is “ageing” and ever more “thinly stretched”
• Anti-submarine capability is now below a “prudent minimum level”
• Royal Marines’ ability to conduct amphibious operations is being “eroded”
• Too many ships are putting to sea with “operational defects”
• Navy’s ability to “deliver influence at strategic level” is under threat
• Navy vulnerable to unexpected shocks compared with 20 years ago
• In 1987 35 ships patrolled UK waters, compared with just 10 today
• New aircraft carriers “provide significant global and military leverage”
• Navy’s modern ships are more capable and cost-effective
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/02/navy102.xml&page=1
By: sealordlawrence - 3rd December 2007 at 07:46
Its all part of the funding battle that is going on at the moment. A defence white paper is due in the spring and in the mean time the three services will fight each other in atrociously bloody battles and this is how it will manifest itself in the press.;)
By: rickusn - 3rd December 2007 at 01:56
Also I replied to a blog on the article I posted above.:
“We often hear about how the US relies on other NATO nations for ASW in the surface fleet.”
I dont remember hearing that.
I do remember hearing that the USN relies on NATO for Mine Warfare.
Although this was a task that NATO nations could more easilly undertake and was far more important to them than the USN in any event.
This fact is often overlooked.
Plus those nations were to provide convoy escorts but the UK virtually abandoned this effort in the 1960s and the other nations were always limited in any event, the Netherlands had plans to provide as many as 28 escorts but this was never realized and now have reduced to six!!!!!!!!!
The USN never really was serious about convoy escort at all.
But this does not mean they werent or arent serious about ASW given the 116 frigates they built along with the 30 Spruances not to mnetion the early FRAM I/II programs among other initiatives such as dedicated CVS groupos and a large number of long-range,duration P-3 aircraft, multi purpose AAW/ASW escorts, early transition to medium sized ASW helos vice smaller on surface combatants among other initiatives.
To be sure after the Cold-War the immediacy of the submarine threat virtually went away overnight.
I just did a study of UK vs US on the Post-Cold War drawdown and the percentage of manpower compared to total population. They are both very similar.
It is true the US spends alot more money but doubtful we get more value.
Also the USN had 12 CSGs and 12 ESG to provide escorts among other tasks this requires nominally a ratio of 10 escorts per carrier to support.
Leading to a total of 120 escorts the USN has been hovering around 100 abit under sometimes and abit over sometimes during this decade.
The UK with nominally 2 CSG and 2 ESG equivilants would/should require only 20 escorts.
Why would they need a higher ratio than the USN?
The USN has at least as many committments to cover and often require more ships to support them.
Plus the distance the RN must travel to the standing committments are often much shorter.
So while I want the Royal Navy to be well funded and have as many ships as they can get it appears to me that some of the issues in particular and specifically escort #s may be a bit overblown.
I didnt always feel this way but after some in-depth study over the years the above is the short version of the conclusions Ive drawn.
To be sure the Royal Navy would come up very shorhanded if a large # of convoy escorts were needed but then this ahs been the case since the late 1950’s in any event for the RN, USN and NATO.
400 approx were required the USN was to supply (all numbers approx) 210 and the RN 70, France 40, Netherlands 20, Canada 20, Germany 12, Spain 12, Norway 4, Belgium 4, Denmark 4, Portugal 4.
With Frances withdrawal from NATO combined with the fact that most of the USN requirement would only be available on mobilization of the vast # of ships in reserve and UK/RN economic/funding challenges nearly 3/4 of the requirement was wishful thinking from the get go.
Not to mention the USN also had its own funding issues.
Cost escalations have plagued the USN for nearly 60 years not to mention so many costly “get-well” programs for already in-service but faulty and already expensive weapons, systems and ships.
By: rickusn - 3rd December 2007 at 01:32
“54 to 25”
Im not sure about this 54 #. Unless their county four Broadsword class launched but not yet in service.
If you do that you have to add thw two launched Type 45s to the 25 # to be consistent.
I count:
1 Bristol(this ship was only nominally useful and had been adapted as a training ship with spaces for supporting 100 cadets added 1987 and decommissioned in 1991)
12 Type 42
8 Type 22
6 Amazon
21 Leander(one of which was the Juno., navigation training ship) with all important sensors, weapons and helo removed)
2 Rothesay
Total 50
And this is why you always have to be careful with raw #s with no supporting clarification.
As people use them to distort reality and speciously provide evidence to support their personal/political agendas.
By: perfectgeneral - 2nd December 2007 at 22:03
This is yet another call for 3% of GDP
I think that the UKNDA have decided that repetition is the key to gaining the government’s ear. I really hope that they succeed. If they don’t, we might all be paying the price in blood.
Maybe this leak isn’t the UKNDA at work, but if there was no band waggon to hop aboard, would this leak have happened? Maybe. After all it is very important that we realise how bad things have got. 😮
Sign In
December 2, 2007 at 8:52 pm