RN has another 10% cut in its escort strength imposed

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jim30, Mar 12, 2008.

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. According to a very reliable source on another site that I frequent, two RN destroyers - Exeter and Southampton are due to enter "extended readiness" in the very near future. Both ships were due to decomission next year, but it appears that in a change to their programme, and as a savings measure, they will now go alongside into "extended readiness" and never go to sea again.

    This is significant for several reasons - firstly it is an almost 10% cut in the RN escort fleet - taking it to just 23 hulls. Once ships go into "ER" (and by that I mean Reserve and not Refit) they do not come out of it. Given that we now have 3 escorts in long term refit, the UK has less than 20 escorts available to go to sea - the lowest number ever, and less than we sent down south to the Falklands. We couldn't do a Falklands scenario now numberswise, even if we sent every escort ship in the fleet.

    What makes this stink is the fact that the Govt has yet to announce it, and probably won't announce it - they can say that the RN has 25 Escvorts at varying levels of readiness, conveniently ignoring the fact that 3 are in long term (i.e over 6 months to get to sea again) refit and 2 are going to be in mothballs (ie stripped of all usable parts and at 6 months notice for sea, ahead of decomissioning next year).

    The MOD will say that "new and more capable ships are replacing them". This is an outright lie - the 42's were designed for replacement by the 45's, the first of which is now due in service in 2009 and is apparently having major technical difficulties. Its unlikely that we will see substantive and operationally effective replacements for at least 5 years - when we've got 4 45's online and with the bugs ironed out. The rest of the ships in service were designed in the 60's and 70's and have a weapons fit to match. All the major upgrade programmes have been cut or cancelled under new labour.

    In 1997 we had 12 destroyers, 23 frigates in service, with another 3 in build. In a couple of months we will have 6 destroyers - the youngest of which will be 22 years old in service, plus 17 frigates - with 4 probably going to be sold to the highest bidder in the near future. On paper 6 escorts are in build, but they are years from service. We've seen a nearly 45% cut in the RN escort fleet under new labour, upgrades cancelled and now have one of the oldest escort fleets in NATO.

    The kleptomaniac captain darling, and the cyclops have gutted my service to pander to the needs of scum, chavs and the poor. Nelson must be rolling in his grave.
     
  2. If the Argentinians did kick off again, and given the oil down there and their own energy problems it doesn't seem inconcievable, could the RN at it's current strength realistically provide a platform for sucessfully retaking them in your view?
     
  3. You are the Argentinean Defence Attaché and I claim my £5.
     
  4. Sadly senor due to the energy crisis we do not have the currency reserves to furnish you with five of your English pounds. So hard is life that we can barely afford a quarter of a skirt for our cheerleading ladies.
     
  5. Forgive my ignorance, but even assuming that Argentinians could overwhelm the heavily reinforced garrison of several thousand operating from RAF Mount Pleasent, doesn't the RN still have an overwhelming technological advantage of the Argentinians, and also has submarines capable of launching Tomohawks, which it didn't have in 1982, and would therefore be capable of striking at the argentine garrison even before the islands came within range of the Harriers?
     
  6. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    What the Harriers that were retired before we have a replacement for them?
     
  7. Does this not qualify for treason on the part of the morons in Government?
    They have betrayed our country on pretty much every level
     
  8. The GR9 Harriers are still there. Plus the fleet has AA and CIWS that it didn't have before.
    Don't get me wrong, I don't support these cuts or anything, but is the downgraded capability of the RN exaggerated a little bit?
     
  9. The GR9's have no AA capability beyond visual range, while the capability replacement in the form of the T45 is a lot later than expected and hull numbers have been cut from 12 - 6.
    The CIWS is close in only, while the tankers have been gutted - we lost 3 tankers in the past 18 months- thats 30% of the fleet strength, while one of only 2 modern AOR's - store ships & tankers is in reserve as we can't afford to run her. We lack modern ships, we lack modern kit - we dont train as task groups really anymore - ORION 08 being very much the exception rather than the rule. The fleet is stretched to meet its tasks, is falling apart due to the lack of maintenance budget and people are leaving in droves.
     
  10. Right lads - to head off an invasion by the Argies, I hearby propose kidnapping thier Cheerleaders and holding them hostage.

    No doubt this will be an extremely dangerous mission, and it is only my devotion to Queen and Country that forces me to volunteer.... :twisted:
     
  11. I'm with you, where do I sign?
     
  12. The T42 isn't much use anyway - the sea dart is obselete. If the navy gets the carriers then its better to lose other obselete surface ships. The fleet needs more helicopter carriers and assault ships as well plus the new SSN's rather than more frigates and destroyers.
    IIRC there was a thread on this subject a couple of months ago and an authoritive source stated that the carriers will each need the type 45's x 2 only.
     
  13. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    The RN has made the choice to stick with the carriers and F35, thus sucking in funding from everything else.

    Whilst I don't agree with what is happening, it is a consequence of holding out for the carriers/F35 whilst simultaneously overseeing the massive cost over runs of Astute and Type 45. Add in the impact of current operations that need less naval than air/ground resources and you can see why.
     
  14. I was involved in bidding the comms for T45 back in the late 90's. T45 came out of the ashes of the Common New Generation Frigate (CNGF) aka Project Horizon. Having spent 7 years (and over £100 million) trying to get a "common" design that was acceptable to all parties (France, Italy & UK), the UK MOD decided to go their own way. This left 7 years to design and build a new ship as, polictically, T45 had to be in service by 2007. I believe that the government had insisted that 12 T45s would be sufficient to replace 18 T42s, but even at that early stage it was accepted that the AA Defence system (PAAMS) would be nowhere near ready in time. It is depressing (but not surprising) that the 'absolute minimum' of 12 T45s has become 6.
     
  15. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    What Jim30 and mnairb said. This will come back to bite us in the arrse one day, as it has for centuries. Fcuking morons in charge.

    Enjoy your soylent green when we can't protect the shipping lanes for food because Venezuela have a more powerful navy than we do. :oops: