"What the heck happened to Britain's Royal Navy?" Topic

"To say that Britain's Royal Navy is legendary is probably to undersell it. There have been thousands of books – fiction and non-fiction – written about its successes during the Napoleonic wars. Admiral Horatio Nelson is famed around the world. One of London's central squares is named for his victory against the combined French and Spanish fleets in 1805. Making the story that much richer, Nelson died of a bullet wound as it became clear that his daring plan had succeeded…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

What happened is budgets. Navies are expensive things to maintain. Ships are mind-bogglingly expensive, and seem to spend about 1/3 of their life actually at sea doing Navy things.

Between the loss of the big economic chunks of the Empire and the powers that be forgetting what happens when someone lets submarines loose in the Atlantic, the Royal Navy was gutted to fund social programs.

navy, we have a navy???????????

As with many things, costs and features skyrocketed over the years.

It's the old Cold War joke. One day we'll build a NATO plane that can take on the entire Warsaw Pact on its own, which is a good thing since they can only afford one …

That and the loss of things like a steel industry, shipyards etc.

Standing militaries have always been expensive and a source of contention. One of the reasons Athens had problems with the Delian was collecting the taxes necessary to maintain the fleet that Athens had built to protect the League, and themselves, from the Persians. Triremes are dirt cheap compared to modern frigates/destroyers, but they were still very expensive items in Athen's budget!

Too bad Athens also misused some of these funds (collected from the League) for social projects!

So what do you want? Social Programs or Triremes????

The triremes are long gone. The Parthenon is still there.

Dirt cheap is relative – at the time, they were massively expensive to build, maintain and operate.

Or, to put it another way, in 2,000 years time people will be saying that 'of course, aircraft carriers were dirt cheap compared to modern star cruisers…'

"The triremes are long gone. The Parthenon is still there."

And so is Athens as a major power.

@GarrisonMiniatures

+1

They wouldn't have helped much against Phillip.

But if they wanted to build a fleet of 'em now,I'd be all in favor of it. In fact,I'd be happy to sign on as a rower!

Dirt cheap is relative – at the time, they were massively expensive to build, maintain and operate.

True, but they also had slave labour.

I don't recall rowers being slaves, at least with the Greeks. Rowers were specially trained professionals… much like modern sailors. They were expensive labor! Again, much like modern sailors. So fitting out a ship to sea, while vastly different in technologies, is still similar in a number of ways and the touchstone is labor. The RN has fewer and fewer hulls in the water because the labor is so expensive, as are the ships!

So the UK's choice is pretty simple. Universal socialism at home or the means to influence the world at sea. To have one the other has to suffer… or find a way to expand your economy so you can to both.

It went underwater, worried about submarines in the Atlantic, PUT THEM THERE FIRST.
Most of the RN`s capital ships these days are SSN`s with only a surface fleet of destroyers and frigates.
That dosn`t include assault and support ships and I`m not counting two aircraft carriers under construction.

Something which wouldn`t surprise Admiral Jackie Fisher at all!
The RN while smaller than it was and hasn`t the numbers of the US and Russian fleets is still one of the more formidable navies around!

TGunner, I took the slave labour to be a comment about the use of slavery in the ancient economy and hence economic might not a suggestion they were used as rowers. Your comments on freemen being used is correct with it being a highly skilled profession as seen by the effects of the loss of the fleet in Sicily on Athens.

As to the choice of it being a choice between universal socialism or a fleet I think that is a bit too simplicist and certainly we must have different interpretations of what universal socialism is. However you are correct the economy is a factor, plus recognition of a nations interest and concerns, as shown by the retreat from East of Suez policy and subsequent decisions.

Perhaps if the UK politicians were to require work for aid, and put them to work building ships……….

I am usually the first to decry the shortsightedness of politicians and their constant raid on the naval budget to fund the needs and fashion aspirations of the sick, lame and lazy…

However as has been pointed out, the Royal Navy remains one of the few ocean going, full warfare spectrum capable navies in the world.

In Europe there is only the Royal Netherlands Navy to compare with the RN in terms of global, integrated, capability, although it has even fewer hulls.

(The French Navy has an impressive number of hulls, and they have a genuine global reach, but none of them are capable of full spectrum C4 connected warfare. The Russian navy is similar in terms of size and reach, but again is outclassed in terms of connectivity and sensors)

Are they full spectrum still, really?

I seem to remember recent urgent calls for aid in sub-hunting aircraft and/or helos in the last 12 – 24 months, due to lurking Russian craft in near-coastal waters.

Times have changed. Britain no longer has a far-flung colonial empire requiring an expensive blue water navy to maintain. The USN has taken over the role of world police in the oceans long ago. There is little threat of invasion by Russia, whose "resurgent" navy is still weak. And Argentina with her own economic woes won't try to invade the Falklands again anytime soon. Tango01 will attest to that himself.

The UKRN does need new ASW helos and MPA, the requirement for home-built equipment has driven the price per unit far too high. Not to mention that none of the Nimrods were actually built to a standard, they were all custom-built.

But again, it comes down to what a nation wants to do with its limited resources. History has shown that maintaining a standing military force, large or small, can be expensive and requires.

Europe does require a blue water capability which is why France and the UK have been building carriers. IIRC, the UK is building 3 carriers and has one in commission… sans fixed-wing air! But with only 19 (!) frigates and destroyers. One has to wonder if they have enough screening ships to protect them. Shireff's book "War With Russia" paints an ugly scenario where a Russian attack sub outmaneuvers the remaining destroyer escort and places three torps into the Queen Elizabeth. Some 900 Brits lost their lives in this ugly scenario.

And before you quibble, the US got really clobbered by a single Japanese sub in '42 when the Japanese scored in the luckiest trop strike ever:

link

Big ships need a decent screen and what the US calls a battlegroup makes me nervous! Two or three destroyers/cruisers/frigates just isn't much of a screen for an asset like a carrier.

Speaking of Greece, it's navy is 11 submarines, 13 frigates and a large number of fast attack boats.

Oh and their air force has more combat jets than either France or UK or Germany.

They might be broke but they pack a punch.

Europe does require a blue water capability which is why France and the UK have been building carriers. IIRC, the UK is building 3 carriers and has one in commission… sans fixed-wing air! But with only 19 (!) frigates and destroyers. One has to wonder if they have enough screening ships to protect them. Shireff's book "War With Russia" paints an ugly scenario where a Russian attack sub outmaneuvers the remaining destroyer escort and places three torps into the Queen Elizabeth. Some 900 Brits lost their lives in this ugly scenario.

Britain is building 2 carriers and will decommission LHD HMS Ocean. Only one of the carriers has a guaranteed service life. The other one was mooted for sail but will be retained even if it's not kept operational or be used as a really large and expensive LHA.

Your other points are valid.

Also the RN currently has 19 frigates/destroyers but not for long.

Current fleet is 13 Type 23 frigates and 6 Type 45 destroyers.

The 13 Type 23s will be replaced in 2020s by only 8 Type 26 frigates.

There has been some talk of keeping frigate numbers same as now by ordering a lighter and simpler Type 31 frigate but this does not seem to have been funded at the moment.

Also the destroyers (Type 45 Daring) have been proven to be not suitable for Arctic or tropical/hot climate service.

We've also lost most of the RFA.

I think the idea of a simpler Type 31 is now getting some traction – if only to keep the Scottish shipyards busy.

I don't know what has become of the Black Swan sloop idea to replace patrol ships and minesweepers – but that was meant to be dozens of hulls.

And of course the ships are now more capable.

I apologise Tango for the example, but it's the one I heard… a single modern frigate has the firepower to stand off the Falklands and shoot down jets in Argentina before they leave Argentinian airspace…

No good if it breaks down or gets torpedoed of course, we definitely need a far bigger fleet, but it's worth considering.