Navy to weak

#2

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#5
#6
mattyw said:
Navy to weak [sic]
Too weak for what?

And whose fault is that?

Money is tight for everybody; has been for a while. Admirals did no favour to their own service by sacrificing ships and crews on the promise of 2 large grey boats some time in the future. A strategy that had more to do with inter-service rivalry than providing the right ships and capabilities for UK defence and security needs.

A recent RUSI paper on the Navy's future did the normal thing of promoting the CVF and claimed the cost (at £5 billion) was a snip when you consider ops in Afghanistan cost us that much a year. Clever deception as the bigger picture: we can pull out of Afghanistan and thus incur no further cost; can't just stop paying for CVF after the build programme AND clever exclusion that the £5 billion CVF spend gives us no crew or aircraft!!!

Nevertheless, being "too weak" is relative to what the RN is expected to do. Just what do you expect the RN to do and are you prepared to fund it?
 
#7
So you haven't read the article then, WC?
 

mattyw

Old-Salt
Kit Reviewer
#9
Too weak for what?

And whose fault is that?

Money is tight for everybody; has been for a while. Admirals did no favour to their own service by sacrificing ships and crews on the promise of 2 large grey boats some time in the future. A strategy that had more to do with inter-service rivalry than providing the right ships and capabilities for UK defence and security needs.

A recent RUSI paper on the Navy's future did the normal thing of promoting the CVF and claimed the cost (at £5 billion) was a snip when you consider ops in Afghanistan cost us that much a year. Clever deception as the bigger picture: we can pull out of Afghanistan and thus incur no further cost; can't just stop paying for CVF after the build programme AND clever exclusion that the £5 billion CVF spend gives us no crew or aircraft!!!

Nevertheless, being "too weak" is relative to what the RN is expected to do. Just what do you expect the RN to do and are you prepared to fund it?
The article is about that the navy is to weak to face any force and the navy needs atleast 10 new frigets
 
#10
And here is What Dr Fox had to say on the subject back in March

Just look at the Royal Navy.
Time and time again, since the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, our Navy has been blackmailed into accepting cuts to its fleet to ensure the eventual addition of the two new carriers.
During the 1998 SDR process, our Navy agreed to cut its fleet of 12 attack submarines to 10 and its fleet of 35 destroyers and frigates to 32 - in return for the promise of the two carriers.
A decade later we find our Navy with only 8 attack submarines (with a probable future reduction to only 6 or 7) and an astonishingly low 22 destroyers and frigates.
Maritime commitments have not decreased since 1998 but have risen at a time when our Navy has been slashed, mothballed, and in some cases, sold off.
There is a similar pattern to be found across all three services-including the Reserves.
Which implies that the Royal Navy should have been maintained at 12 submarines and 35 Frigates/ Destroyers. So not counting old age/ end of life we are short 4 attack submarines and 13 frigates/ destroyers.
Nothing has changed since March, will it have changed by the time of the SDSR?
We need a fairly serious build program to return the RN to the minimum reasonable strength, both Labour (cnuts, the lot of them) and Conservative have repeatedly said the RN needs to be at the strenght given in the 1998 SDR, the only thing that has changed has been gross economic mis-management and plundering of the public purse. Tha Navy and the country needs those ships.


I will be more than a little interested to see what he has to say in October
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#11
#12
P2000 said:
So you haven't read the article then, WC?
Not thoroughly, Not yet. When I find the time to give it the attention that it may deserve, I shall; and if necessary repost in this thread.

However, I'm always suspect of an article that begins by inventing a concept (silent principles) which low-and-behold just happen to be the perfect raison d'etre for the pet service of the authors. And furthermore, also goes on to promote, in the very first paragraph, the idea that the security paradigm of the 17th Century should be the main driver in determining our military and security architecture in the 21st Century. That smacks of academic desperation that the argument is already, or on the point of being, lost.
 
#13
jagman said:
And here is What Dr Fox had to say on the subject back in March

Which implies that the Royal Navy should have been maintained at 12 submarines and 35 Frigates/ Destroyers. So not counting old age/ end of life we are short 4 attack submarines and 13 frigates/ destroyers.
Nothing has changed since March, will it have changed by the time of the SDSR?
We need a fairly serious build program to return the RN to the minimum reasonable strength, both Labour (cnuts, the lot of them) and Conservative have repeatedly said the RN needs to be at the strenght given in the 1998 SDR, the only thing that has changed has been gross economic mis-management and plundering of the public purse. Tha Navy and the country needs those ships.

I will be more than a little interested to see what he has to say in October
Do you think the RN would swop two promised grey elephants for the promise of 4 attack submarines and 13 escorts?
 
#14
Do you think the RN would swop two promised grey elephants for the promise of 4 attack submarines and 13 escorts?
By grey elephants I presume you mean to shiney new aircraft carriers?
In which case no, I do not. I think the RN should be at the strength declared appropriate by the 1998 SDR and Dr Fox's stated opinion in March this year. 12 attack submarines, 35 Destroyers/ Frigates and 2 Aircraft Carriers (plus assorted others, not material to this discussion)
I would go further and say that really we need more, but the level set by the last SDR is deemed appropriate by people far more qualifed than myself, including the current minister.
 
#15
SDR stated 32 FF/DD, 10 SSN, 22 MCMV + CVF (x2).

"About thirty" was what the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West said to the Commons Defence Select Commitee in 2004 when asked how many escorts the UK needs.
 
#17
jagman said:
By grey elephants I presume you mean to shiney new aircraft carriers?
With a spend of £5 billion they are indeed grey elephants with no crew or aircraft. For a few more billion, the RN could put together a small wing of air assets with very limited capability.

To actually perform the missions that Project CVF is being sold as, requires MASSIVE financial investment and support from the RAF.

Strangely, Charles II's admirals didn't have that political conundrum to consider.
 
#18
Hmmm whitecity, you seem to believe that without CVF the RN will need 30 escorts; it won't. The Type 82 class of the 70s was designed to give area defence to the planned CVA-01 carrier, when that carrier was canceled only the first of class HMS Bristol was retained as a testbed for new technologies; were it not for the T45s' being so far advanced in construction then they would be cut as well. The lack of CAPs' to guard an amphibious TF (as shown by the Falklands War) would lead to a serious reduction in RN capabilities to autonomously maintain a TF in a combat zone. This would result in the RN becoming mere assets to US or French carrier task forces and thus negate the need for large numbers of escorts as this would be provided as part of a coalition.

For countries which have similar obligations to defend large areas of water without carriers, the Dutch and Australian navies are worth comparing. Thus CVF is not the cause of lower numbers of escorts, it is the guarantee that we have many at all. The two 'white elephants' are essential for the future of the RN as the primary method of UK power projection.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top