[Berkut76]

This is really sad and pathetic. It looks like the pacifist tendencies of the mainland Europe taken to the extreme spread to the once mighty Great Britain.

It's realy downright disturbing to acknowledge that the US will have to battle rising and confident forces of evil by itself yet again:

Navy to cut its fleet by half

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure.

Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.
The Government has admitted that 13 unnamed warships are in a state of reduced readiness, putting them around 18 months away from active service. Today The Daily Telegraph can name a further six destroyers and frigates that are being proposed for cuts.
A need to cut the defence budget by £250 million this year to meet spending requirements has forced ministers to look at drastic measures.
MoD sources have admitted it is possible that the Royal Navy will discontinue one of its major commitments around the world at a time when Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has said more ships are needed to protect the high seas against terrorism and piracy.
advertisement

News of further cuts to what was once the world's most formidable fleet comes as critics say failings across the Services are becoming increasingly apparent.
More details are emerging of the near-squalor that soldiers are forced to tolerate in barracks when they return from six months of dangerous overseas operations.
Questions have also been raised about the poor pay for troops and equipment failures which continue to dog operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The six warships to be mothballed are the Type 22 frigates Cumberland, Chatham, Cornwall and Campbeltown and two Type 42 destroyers Southampton and Exeter.
It is likely that they will eventually be sold or scrapped. There are also fears in the Admiralty that two new aircraft carriers, promised in 1998, might never be built.
Meanwhile the French navy, which will be far superior to the Royal Navy after the cuts, will announce before the April presidential elections that a new carrier will be built.
Two of eight advanced air defence Type 45 destroyers on the Navy's order books will not be bought, defence sources said. The order is already six months behind schedule and £157 million over budget.
A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us."
Defence sources said it would be unlikely that the Navy could now launch an armada of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands in 1982.
Steve Bush, editor of the monthly magazine Warship World, said the MoD was bankrupt following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"After 10 years of Labour government, the Royal Navy is on its knees without immediate and proper funding. I cannot see how it can recover —especially if Mr Brown becomes the next prime minister," he said.
There are already reports that ships on operations are ignoring faults to weapons systems in order to save money but will spend cash if it is a health and safety issue.
The Navy is expected to lose one of its three carriers, Invincible, which has been laid up in Portsmouth. One of the three major ports is also under threat of closure. It is believed that the historic Navy headquarters of Portsmouth is most vulnerable.
Two unnamed mine counter-measure vessels and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers, Brambleleaf and Oakleaf, are also under threat.
Adam Ingram, the defence minister, admitted in a Parliamentary answer last month that 13 ships were at sea with 18 in port at 48 hours notice to deploy. The decision to tie up another six frigates will mean the Navy has just 25 warships left. This would mean giving up a major commitment such as the anti-drugs and hurricane support role in the Caribbean.
To protect Britain from attack today, the country has the frigates Monmouth and Montrose available with the carrier Ark Royal about to re-enter service after a lengthy refit.
The MoD said yesterday that it had no plans to cut the destroyer and frigate fleet but it "routinely reviewed" defence capabilities "to ensure resources are directed where our front line Armed Forces need them most".
A spokesman said: "We are some way from any decisions and just because a proposal is looked at does not mean that it will be implemented"
A final decision on the cuts is expected next month

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../05/navy05.xml

Regards,

Sergey

P.S. I can already picture the Hitler of Persia jumping up and down.

[Cardinal]

If cuts such as those mentioned materialise, it reminds one of the "peace in our time" delusion that existed almost seven decades ago. Sadly, many politicians fail to recognise the potential long-term strategic consequences of their short-term politically expedient actions and pay little heed to the significance and lessons of history.

[1250ships]

The UK defense budget is under lots of strain. They want to build a new class of strategic missile submarines to maintain their nuclear deterent. They want to build two new carriers. The Type 45 destroyers mentioned above are over budget. The Eurofighter Typhoon is over budget. The Iraq deployment requires funding. Something has got to give and it is the current fleet.

The ships considered for decomissioning are 3rd batch of Type 22 frigates which went into service 1988-1990. The earlier ships have all been scrapped or sold to foreign navies. The only remaining frigates will be Type 23 ships- a newer, more capable design.

The other ships are Type 42 destroyers in service since 1980 and 1981. They are the smaller Batch 2 type. This move leaves the Royal Navy with two remaining Batch 2 destroyers and four of the larger Batch 3 ships.

I thought the retirement of the Sea Harrier force in March of 2006 coupled with the reduction to a single carrier was worse blow.

[admin]

China grins

[jim]

History! Naval history in particular is all about what made Britain great. Without the HMs Royal Navy Britain would have remained a tiny obscure island off the coast of Europe...... Dare I say the whole world would have been a different place? I believe so, how so? Well lets review the facts, the navy opened up trade throughout the world, it kept Britain safe. Because of the navy raw materials , ideas and inventiveness thrived. the empire was born on the back of the navy. Exploration and the gaining of knowledge was almost fanatically carried out on a huge scale across the globe all made possible by the power of the navy. Most importantly it allowed the attitude of the British to change from an insular inward looking society to one where the population of Britain viewed the whole world as an exciting and fascinating place of huge opportunities. The Brits traveled the world over (and populated a lot of it). Trade sprang up everywhere,wealth was created on a scale hitherto unheard of, but most of all it fueled the industrial revolution that changed the world forever. The navy many times fought not only for Britain but also for the freedom of other countries. It has come to the aid of many people in times of trouble......I could also claim that it kept the more dangerous elements in the world under control. The whole world has since benefited from the advances that took place under the guardianship of the Royal Navy. For the historians of the Hanger I am sure you appreciate what I am trying to say, its all about cause and effect. Links in chain. First comes the navy, then trade, then exchange of ideas, then progress. I know there are those that will point out the bad things that have taken place and indeed there are many but I think the end justifies the means so to speak. So to get to the point, does it matter that in 2007 Britain keeps a viable navy? The world has changed greatly since the founding of the navy. Money rules the world now and gunboat diplomacy is obsolete. Do we need to spend money on the fleet when we have so many other uses for the money? Schools hospitals pensions etc. Is the Royal navy relevent anymore? YES YES YES of course its relevent, we need a viable navy...... Learn from history. Has the world suddenly become a safe place? Are we free from any threat? Are our friends and allies safe from threat? Of course not. Before you spend on anything you must be sure that you and yours are safe, then you can spend on schools hospitals etc. It is a dangerous world and we must be alert to the dangers even more so today than ever before. The attitude of the present British government is shamefull. The armed forces of Britain are being asked to carry out operations all over the world and yet are not equipped for the task. When our forces are asked to risk their lives on our behalf the very least we can do is equipe them with everything we possibly can to keep them as safe as possible. I am now getting into politics, an area not suitable for the hanger perhaps. I have tried to condense my thoughts into as small a "rant " as possible. please forgive me if this bores you all but it made me feel better.I can only hope that we in Britain have a change of heart by the government or a change of government. The navy is needed.

[Captain Eddie]

I absolutely agree with cardinal. What the U.K. needs perhaps is another Churchill. What is the world coming to?

By the way, jim, nice "rant."

[skysurfer808]

It is a sad shame that the Royal Navy is being so cut to the bone. What I do not understand is why the HMS Vanguard class sub class has to be replaced so soon after being commissioned. I mean these boats were only completed and commissioned in the 1990s, Vanguard in 1992 and Vengeance in 1999. They have the latest Trident D-5s, so why the rush to replace them. The last time the British government made such a decision, they scuttled their 1960s supercarrier program in favor of Polaris. Now deterrance is something all nations find useful, but realistically the USA has provided the majority of Europe's nuclear shield since the beginning of the cold war. In the event of a real nuclear war what will British and French nukes do aside from bouncing more radioactive rubble. The British government ought to refit their Trident subs to extend their service lives. The Economist ran something on this, it turns out that the US Ohio Class Tridents have an estimated service life of 44 years, while the British plan for only 30 years for their Tridents.

The real issue is prestige, as Britain and France cling to their Nuclear arms and the power status they bring. Anyone wonder why so many nations are eager to join the nuclear club. A real effective gesture would be for the Royal Navy to concentrate on building up its Carrier fleet by replacing their little Through Deck Cruisers with real Aircraft Carriers. This would show the world that Britain wants to disarm, calm Lefty peacenik sensibilities, while giving the Royal Navy an effective strike force that could assist the USN around the world. As it stands already, France has the more effective carrier force of the two, and they are about to build another.

Vive La France

Skysurfer808

[Mr. Football]

That is pathetic and very very sad. One of the proudest sea-going nations on the earth, castrated. Perhaps Israel can start sending foreign military aid to the UK to help them get this situation rectified.

[Berkut76]

Honestly, the bigger issue that military budgets of major nations are stuck in Cold War era, when the battlefield situation has changed completely. I don't think we are going to fight China or Russia in conventional war any time soon or ever.

On the other hand, there is a supreme need in better small arms, individual protection and communication equipments as well as AFV, and close support aircraft and helos not stuffed with electronic gizmos, but more armor and fuel loads. In short, we need "sturmoviks" not stealth fighters or nuclear subs. Also, I think that the role of Navy, albeit in different capacity is greater than ever given the lack of reliable ground staging areas across the globe.

In short, what Britain is doing doesn't make a lot of sense.

Regards,

Sergey

[MoMo]

Remember folks, you are dealing with a report in the " Daily Telegraph" which is the organ of the conservative, Little Englander, Tory, Right-Wing, Creepazoid mentality which howls in protest every time the " Senior Service" is threatened!

To the Establishment, the R.N. was a traditional parking space for the not-too-bright sons of the upper classes. To everyone else, it was a service to be avoided because of the lousy and harsh conditions. In fact, for most of the services existence as a National Force, they had to kidnap men off the streets to serve in it. This was called " Pressed Service ".

I know that it has a proud history and that the service was vital in WW2 to supress the U-Boats and to contain the German surface raiders, but in today's world the service should concentrate on practical matters. We don't need to show the flag round the world. Those days are gone.

We don't need a bunch of missiles which have the capacity to destroy most of Europe. Who are we going to use them against?

Also, we should be working on Arms Reduction, not aquisition in order to make the world a safer place. There is an optimum level which should deter agressors. We don't need to spend money on junk we don't need. We do need to spend money on this we do need.

Anyway, relax! If it's in " The Telegraph" it'll never happen. They scare-monger like this every time they get worried about the royal family not having a place to dump their idiot offspring.

Rule Britannia! I don't think so.

MoMo