MoD:- Navy Would Struggle To Fight A War - Report

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Ritch, Dec 2, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Daily Telegraph

    The Royal Navy can no longer fight a major war because of years of under­funding 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.

    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".
  2. We are rapidly heading towards being a purely national defence force because the longer they leave sorting this mess out the more it will cost.
  3. Going to state the obvious and preach to the converted here etc, but here goes anyway.......

    Anyone who isn't a member of Neu Arbeit will already know that the armed forces are collectively in a shambles. All are far to small, underfunded and under resourced (RM included) to achieve what HMG chooses to posture on the world stage.
  4. I agree but the funny thing is that this will be at odds with the incumbents unstated aim of keeping the the armed forces at arms length. A national defence force would be almost exclusively home based and that will just make the cnuts in Whitehall nervous.
  5. What's I find frightening in this Telegraph story is the fact Swiss Des purposely "commissioned this report in order to counter criticism about the state of the Navy from the media and the opposition parties".

    Did he actually think the report would say the Navy is in fine shape under Liarbour?

    How many other Liarbour cnuts are as deluded as him?
  6. This is all starting to get a bit worrying. I feel the need to write to my labour MP again on this matter and remind him what a tiny electoral majority he is sitting on. :(
  7. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    Considering the navy has had the axing of the sea harrier & replacing it with the raf harrier,which is a entirely different aircraft not fully suited to the navy, im not suprised. More penny pinching by hmg.
  8. We've still got a navy ?????????????????????

    I saw a submarine once, a black one just coming out of plymouth, 1970.
  9. I wonder how much of the well stretched defence budget was spent on preparing this report. If Des had sent me a fiver I could have given him the same report and thrown one in about the straitened circumstances under which the Army and RAF are trying to complete their tasks for nowt.
  10. so the best form of defence is attack or does that depend on what and where your defending?

    its possible to many MP's have play stations and TV's.. Just because the americans speak english they will not always be on our side??
  11. I have posted this on RR but I know not everyone on this board looks at it.

    The reduction from 54 to 29 frigates and destroyers over the past 20 years is bad enough but worse is yet to come. The current Government has grudgingly ordered six destroyers and no frigates during its entire tenure. As things stand, these six Type 45s (instead of the 12 mandated by the 1998 Strategic Defence Review) will enter service by 2017 by which time the Royal Navy will have lost all eight of its remaining Type 42 air defence destroyers. Any of the four remaining Type 22 frigates still in service will be at least 29 years old and any of the 13 remaining Type 23 frigates will be at least 16 years old.

    The ordering of new warships in such penny packet numbers not only risks our future as a maritime nation (how else do you deliver, protect and sustain boots on the ground without host nation support?) but also results in much higher unit costs for design, build, development, spares, through-life maintenance, appropriately skilled manning and specialist system training. Owing to routine maintenance, training and other commitments, it takes three ships to guarantee the availability of one to meet any sudden operational requirement. Modern warships may be highly capable but they can only be in one place at a time. This paucity of numbers will also lead to a risk-averse mentality as each one will be too precious to consider losing. The two long-promised aircraft carriers, now nine years without an order in sight, will also be too vulnerable to risk in hazardous environments if they lack sufficient escorts to protect them from the full range of threats.

    Few people in 1929 (only 11 years after "The War to End All Wars") imagined that the world was only 10 years from being enveloped in another large scale conflict so it is the height of arrogance to discount such a possiblity. The present focus is on the mainly land battles in Iraq and Afghanistan but you do not cancel your fire insurance after suffering a spate of burglaries. Like fire insurance, warships and their trained personnel cannot be plucked out of thin air after a catastrophe has occurred. We must resume paying our full premiums now.
  12. I,ve said it once, and I,ll say it again, Labour Gumint is terrified of the Armed Forces, so keeps it small, underfunded, ill equipped, or overseas out of the way in case it turns on them in a Coup, and arrests the whole silly stupid adle brained jackanapes, who fondly imagine they know how to run a country and pose on the world stage, when in fact they are just what you see, a crowd of lying thieving, sleazy psuedo socialists who hate their own people and are hell bent on destroying our country.

    Check! Check! Check, Rant over, Train Fore and Aft.
  13. Hello Dunservin,

    well said.

  14. Can anyone explain to me why we're spending billions on just 2 new aircraft carriers? If you're going to spend that much money to build a new ship from scratch, surely you should build lots of them to make the most of the fixed R&D costs.

    What about mixed-role cruiser-sized ships with a handful of VTOL aircraft instead of dedicated carriers? That way we could build more of them and still touch all the bases. Also with supersonic tactical nuclear anti-ship missiles and supercavitating tactical nuclear torpedoes, the days of large surface fleets might diminish, instead replaced with smaller, more numerous multirole ships and submarines.

    Was buying some Nimitz-class carriers from the Yanks ever an option?
  15. Could have sworn Admiral Jonathon Milliband was on the telly/noise box the other week swearing that all was rosy in the Navy.