RN has another 10% cut in its escort strength imposed

#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?
 
#4
Dunservin said:
You are the Argentinean Defence Attaché and I claim my £5.
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
Anothermedalwonderer said:
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?
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
coors said:
Dunservin said:
You are the Argentinean Defence Attaché and I claim my £5.
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.
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
Werewolf said:
coors said:
Dunservin said:
You are the Argentinean Defence Attaché and I claim my £5.
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.
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:
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
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
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:
 
#16
Since the Bliar / Broon Axis of Weasels got the keys to the car, only four new escorts have entered service against 13 disposed of. Several ships have entered the Fleet in that time but for spin purposes they include (I think) six RFAs, OPVs etc. Essential kit but not much use for projecting power and influence or providing force protection or naval gunfire support. How long until Royal's RIBs are included in the strength of the Fleet?

Like Ord Sgt said, we will get bitten one day. When we do, the Government will blame everyone else.
 
#17
"This will come back to bite us in the arrse one day, as it has for centuries."

Yes How true, the lessons of History have to be leared again and again.
john
 
#18
Labour don't give a monkeys about the RN as they're nothing but a bunch of communist traitors. They'd happily bend us over a barrel whilst Russia rearms for the Second Cold War and China develops a potent blue water fleet.

95% of all UK trade goes via the sea. Remember that.
 
#19
Hello trackbasher,

I would go even further and suggest that the Darings are the prime cause of the Navy's problems.

Destroyers need carriers and frigates to provide them with defence against ships and submarines.
They are an entirely defensive platform whose purpose is to follow other ships around providing them with air defence.
For the price of even the much reduced fleet of six destroyers (£6,600 Million plus the £4,400 Million for the Queen Elizabeths) we could have had at least four larger aircraft carriers with those same air defence systems on board and the additional aircraft for their airgroups.
That would give us vastly greater capabilities.

It is difficult to see the justification for such huge expenditure on ships which carry around an air defence system for other vessels which are more than capable of carrying it themselves.
I would like to see a surface fleet of four large aircraft carriers,four large assault ships and two dozen frigates.
Perhaps it would be better to say I believe that is what we can afford,I would like a good deal more.

If it were not for the looming capability gap I would be quite happy to see the Darings and Queen Elizabeths cancelled or sold and the money ploughed into four bigger faster more capable carriers.

tangosix.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top