It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
* SNIP **
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Guess the falklands wasnt enough of a lesson for them, or mabye the government now has this "air mobile" idea and wants to use the RAF more, sure makes a lot of sense since there spending so much money on aircraft and land forces.
Originally posted by st3ve_o
if things were that bad we wouldn’t be upgrading trident, that would be the first thing to be scrapped not ships.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
[What? Sacrifice your nuclear deterrent for navy ships? You may not have the same force projection capabilities with less ships but at least you have an effective and overwhelming response should anyone too big for you to handle ever crosses the line.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
They have already all but reduced the future buy of the Type 45
Originally posted by st3ve_o
no offence here dude but for me that is a typical cowboy response and the kinda reply how many americans look at things...
Originally posted by st3ve_o
i will reply to it though, the lifespan of the current trident doesn't expire while 2040's.
Originally posted by st3ve_o
...so what happens if they manage to sink those? last option NUKE EM? yeah man niceone, should make britain quite popular shouldn't it?
Originally posted by Baphomet79
While I am proud to be descended from the Union Jack, I just do not see the point in the UK having an overwhelming Navy anymore, any country for that matter.
I know that the military history of Britain was written by the sail but there is no reason that in todays military, a huge Royal Navy is necessary.
British Armed Forces still have more than adequate force projection. Someone used the example of Falklands-II. What is more effective...those few destroyers... or (I do not know the British equivalent) transports with para-troopers to seize a landing zone.
One of the proudest traditions in military history, but at the same point it is not necessary in the battlefield of today.
Originally posted by stumason
That's what is being replaced by the Type-45's.
Originally posted by stumason
Besides, one Type-45 is as capable as ALL the Type-42's put together.