"Britain's Royal Navy is Now At A Historic Low" Topic

"Britain's defences are at risk amid uncertainty over plans to replace the "woefully low" number of Royal Navy warships, MPs have warned.

The Royal Navy has 19 frigates and destroyers, but a Defence Select Committee report says that number could fall unless there is a clear timetable set out for replacing older vessels.

It says the UK could "lack the maritime strength" to meet potential threats.

But the Ministry of Defence says it is investing billions in the Navy's fleet…"

Main page
bbc.com/news/uk-38044967

Amicalement
Armand

For a country that relies as heavily on ocean transported trade as Great Britian seems like a mistake to have no ability to protect that trade. The far East could get cut off and the Royal Navy appears to have no ability to do anything about it.

I read a story not too long ago that also stated that the Royal Navy will also not have a SSM on its ships either. Sad stories for what was once such a great navy.

Make a 3rd column with USA ships.

These ships would also be available.

That vanishing seapower chart seems to have missed the nuclear subs that are the most powerful units in the navy…

Also seems a bitstrange to compare with Russia without listing the ships Russia had in those other years…

I read the Defence Committee report today, I've never seen language like it in a Committee report, the MoD are going to have a hard time responding.
The situation is even worse than the chart suggests, one of the Type 45s is now acting as a training ship , and the whole class continues to have engine problems. The fleet's Harpoon missiles will soon be retired leaving no SSM capability. And the state of British shipyards is such that the new Type 26s which will replace the current frigates will only be built at one every two years, whereas the Type 13 will be retiring at a rate of one per year.

Let's hope the MoD has had a sufficient kick up the arse to do something about it.

1972 Soviets had:

2 ASW Helicopter Cruisers
28 cruisers and frigates
192 destroyers and escorts
75 amphibious ships
57 ballistic missile submarines
282 attack submarines

From: PDF link

So, looks like their navy is a bit smaller than it used to be as well.

A bit off topic but in the same vein, the number of infantry in the British army is now less than the number of casualties we suffered on the first day of the Somme. Please note that I am not saying that this means our army is non-effective; I acknowledge that the lethality of weapons has increased hugely since 1916. Even so, it is a sobering thought.

True, JM, though the USN is hurting a bit too, as cost cutting, and overly expensive defense budget items take a major toll on our new spending, and military readiness capabilities.

IIRC, we no longer have any frigates, since the mothballing/scrapping of the OH Perry class (or, they will be, and/or are being phased out shortly – thought they'd retired all of them, but seem to recall one of the Iranian-backed rebel missile targets looked like an OH Perry to me, if the photo was current, and not just a stock one used by the news people).

That's especially true if you count the partially unarmed, new, Zumwalt class (more than one being produced?), which has little to no ordnance for its gun to fire 80+ miles over the horizon, since each round of ammunition costs $800,000 USD+, so they've decided not to procure the 150 rounds intended for the vessel.

The new, little crappy ships we bought multiples of are so unreliable they've now been restricted only to coastal waters, so they can be towed back to port when they break down (notice, I said "when", not if, given their high propensity to do that).

The UK has TWO new aircraft carriers, but sadly, no jets to place on them, since the F-35 is way behind "shedule" (English accent provided), and way over budget.

Everyone wants more ships until someone points out they cost money.

If you think this is bad don't look at the state of the RAF.

Fatman

Or, the FAA.

It's just bloody insane.

We fight pointless expeditionary wars but refuse to fund the armed forces.

We make terrible, short-sighted, ridiculous decisions.

The British armed forces should not be in this state, unless we have a deliberate policy to abandon our overseas commitments, and restrict ourselves to an Irish-style self defence force.

It's criminal, it really is.

Might soon be time for another go Armand… if the garrison cannot keep you out this time there is damn all the Navy can do about it… (and don't get me started on the Fleet Air Arm and the crabs con trick of the century..)
Penquin Militia anyone???

Make a 3rd column with USA ships.

These ships would also be available.

Like they were during the Falklands, when a US carrier group came to the rescue and sank the whole Argentine navy in one day?

I'm less concerned about the army and RAF, they can be grown relatively quickly, the navy can't, especially not with our current shipbuilding capability. One escort every two years!

Bloody appalling, isn't it?

Don't worry. Soon Brexit will be reversed and you'll have nothing to worry about since you'll be in the warm bosom of the European Union.

Noble – it was offered but we turned it down. Then again we had carriers with aircraft then. How the MoD can justify the loss of the Harrier fleet beggars belief.

At least wait until the F-35B was operational in squadron strength, rather than removing it entirely.

The idea of carriers without aircraft… and then there's Nimrod…!

That's especially true if you count the partially unarmed, new, Zumwalt class (more than one being produced?), which has little to no ordnance for its gun to fire 80+ miles over the horizon, since each round of ammunition costs $800,000.00 USD USD+, so they've decided not to procure the 150 rounds intended for the vessel.

It reminds me of a Sci-Fi short story I read a long time ago. In it a little country – I can't remind which, but I think it was Nicaragua or something like that- fights in a war against the United States and wins… without a shot being fired. The US loses because her weapons systems are so sophisticated and expensive that using them would ruin the country, so when the PResident tries to go forward nonetheless, he is impeached by the Congress. I thought it was a funny story. Now? I am not so sure.

The comparison isn't really fair though.
What is the state of the Russian ships?
I doubt that many of them are fully operational or recently built.

JMSDF on the other hand had been replacing ships on a 1:1 basis.

Can the UK afford to build more ships? It's nice to feel safe but if such builds beggar and break your economy then what value are they? People can't find affordable housing, good National Heath access and well paying jobs. What use a navy in an insurrection?

Where is the UK to find the money to buy carriers, destroyers, frigates, minesweepers, planes, tanks, etc.?

Could these seemingly irrational MOD decisions be designed to embaress the government into spending more? Or could these decisions be designed to create a military crisis which jars the British establishment and public so badly that the shock-doctrine of disaster capitalism could be used to impose social spending cuts and higher taxes on immobile citizens (instead of mobile businesses and capital) in order to pay for future naval spending?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

For the UK, the Navy should be the first priority for defence with the RAF second. We don't need a massive army to defend the Falklands and should probably let others provide the boots on the ground in other conflicts we are involved in. The likes of Germany, Turkey and most other large continental countries can provide the soldiers.We need to protect the sea lanes and Northern Approaches. We're a sea power, not a land power.

Simple fact, we can't do it all ourselves, we have to prioritise.

Well with all the downsizing of all of the NATO forces. Air, ground and sea. NATO staying around may be a good idea.

I'm less concerned about the army and RAF, they can be grown relatively quickly, the navy can't, especially not with our current shipbuilding capability. One escort every two years!

RAF can't be built up quickly. Lead time for building a single new jet fighter is about 3 years these days. Training pilot and even some ground crew is similar.

Well with all the downsizing of all of the NATO forces. Air, ground and sea. NATO staying around may be a good idea.

NATO is the problem.

The Europeans clearly see NATO as a way of having the Americans subsidise their defence.

Most of the Eastern Europeans completely gutted their militaries when they joined NATO as they no longer needed to maintain an independent military deterrent.

And Europeans continue to cut back on defence spending despite Russian and global developments.

USA needs to pull back from Europe and let the equally rich and populous Europeans reacquire defence capability.

USA needs to pull back from Europe and let the equally rich and populous Europeans reacquire defence capability.

That'd be a real surprise if it ever happens …

It's unlikely especially in a world where Western powers are largely paralysed in terms of decision making (e.g. South China Sea which they gave away to PRC, Syria etc etc).

A large part of the Russian Navy is rusting at the dockside.

Cicero, that's true. However a lot of those ships are decommissioned rust buckets.

The modern Russian navy has been expanding through both upgrades and recommissioning of existing ships and acquisition of new ones.

And the issue is not just the Russian Navy.

Assuming the US really is committed to Pacific* there's a growing Chinese Navy. The USN is not growing so to counter China they need to allocate more resources to Asia Pacific (aka Asia Pivot).

There's other areas where neutral/doubtful allies are growing naval capabilities that require stronger Western navies – this includes Egypt, India, Algeria, Vietnam etc.

It doesn't help that USN conventional warfighting capability is also dwindling thanks to the bungled Zumwalt and LCS programs which gutted hull numbers and capability).

*Given failure of Asian Pivot and subsequent gifting of South China Sea to PRC, I am doubtful of US intentions to defend either her interests or allies in Asia.

Right now PRC strength in SEA is at an all time high – they've got the South China Sea, have made massive inroads in political influence in US allies : Thailand, Philippines and even Australia (there's senior Australian politicians and even an ex-PM calling for ditching of US-Australia alliance in favour of closer ties with Asia (ie China)).

If prioritizing budgets for the UK, I'd say the RAF needs more funding than the navy.

As we've seen in the Falklands, modern ships are pretty much sitting ducks against fast moving aircraft, even with dumb bombs.

I doubt anyone will invade the UK by sea, and the air force could respond and prevent that better if they were to try.

Air assets are much faster, and a lot more flexible than surface ships.

Since they've got the Chunnel, they're no longer totally isolated, though I guess a few demo charges, depth charges, or well-aimed torpedoes could change that rather quickly.

Still, there's not much of an enemy sea-borne threat currently, so improving the air force would be my first priority.

Mako – given our overseas territories require protection, some form of bluewater power projection a la the Falklands Task Force is required.

Ideally the Royal Navy would have two (or three) carriers with associated escorts etc.

Then the RAF/FAA needs enough reconnaissance ASW aircraft to defend the UK and also to provide support for any actions abroad.

The Army needs to have a light division that can provide amphibious/airborne landing capacity.

In other words the Armed Forces needs to have an integrated power projection force that can respond to threats to UK territorial integrity across the globe.

We also need to stop getting involved in bloody stupid and pointless wars like Iraq '03…!

Vigilant
Please give any reference you have for that statement. I have never come across anything which even remotely suggested the US would consider directly intervening. The indirect/logistic support they provided was a great help but actually get involved sorry that wasn't going to happen.

Fatman

Noble713
No Task Force but logistic help including plane loads of top end Sidewinders; Satellite imagery' SigInt and other intelligence; all of which upset a lot of their Latin American neighbours. Believe me the US were good allies during a war, which let's be honest, was ~#*k all to do with them.

Fatman

Believe me the US were good allies during a war, which let's be honest, was ~#*k all to do with them.

Please explain ?

The US chose to support the UK, this meant they went against a Latin American nation which caused diplomatic problems with other LA nations who were allies of the US. Lets be honest, how important was the sovereignty of a few hundred islanders to the US? It wasn't like the Soviets or Cubans were invading. They could have chosen, as did many of our other allies, to stay aloof from the conflict or at least keep the logistic support they supplied a secret. The State Department apparently advised the first option with the secret support being a "worst case scenario". Don't forget that there were many people in the UK who didn't think the islands were worth fighting for. While we probably would still have won the conflict without the US support it would have been much more costly and bloody. A friend who was working with US Army teams training Latin American Forces told me that for a few years after the conflict that Officers they were working were unhappy that the US chose us over them. As somebody who was involved in a small way with the conflict and had friends who were much more "up close and personal" with it I am very grateful that the US chose us.

Sorry this post is a little disjointed but its 03:30 here and I am trying to watch the Steelers/Colts game as I type.

Fatman

Got it ! Makes sense. The UK is responsible for the USA's birth, directly or indirectly. So I can see the UK being chosen over LA.

And GO Steelers !

What overseas territories?

Of sure, a few little ones, like the Falklands, Turks and Caicos, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, etc., etc..

My guess is those would be better protected by aircraft, which can redeploy more quickly and covertly, given the proper tanker support, than a naval vessel or three will permit. Aircraft cost a lot less than ships, move a lot faster, and are, pound for pound, and GBP for GBP a lot more lethal than their water-borne competition.

The US backed Britain in the Falklands because of the special relationship between the two governments and in particular the two leaders, Ronald Reagan and 'Iron Lady' Margaret Thatcher. The US and UK were the two nations most instrumental in ramping up the arms race in the '80s against the USSR with its successive geriatric and ailing premiers, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko, which led to its eventual collapse.

Maintaining its relations with Argentina and other LA allies pale by comparison.

@fatman- The US planned to offer an amphib asault ship if one of the RN carriers went down. Cant recall the name. Would have been crewed by retired USN personnel as "contrators" to help the RN crew. Obviously didnt happen. Most of the support was logistic and a bit of intel. A lot of intel came from chile as well and one of the scandewegian nations, though I forget which.

On the flip side quite a few SA countries offered infantry to support Argentina, and aircraft, and tried to buy missiles for them.

And then we have the frenchies, who supported both sides!