Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[Colin Bishop]

This article in the Telegraph paints a depressing picture of the state of the RN - all true I'm afraid. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/02/navy202.xml

[Bryan Young]

This article in the Telegraph paints a depressing picture of the state of the RN - all true I'm afraid. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/02/navy202.xml
[/quote
Most of the points Mr.Fox made have already been aired on this Forum...think he reads it? Perhaps the forum is more "powerful" than any of us thought! Cheers. BY.

[Roger in France]

I am not sufficiently well informed to comment on how well the RN is equipped. I do struggle to avoid a knee jerk reaction, "The British RN has always been the greatest and therefore must be equipped to the highest level". The UK has forged an alliance with the USA and others which (like it or not) means we cannot leave that out of the equation.

However, what I can say with a degree of certainty and of cynicism is, that I see "The Telegraph" adopting its usual right-wing stance which it would also follow if the headline was, "Major tax increase to rebuild the RN". Just look at it's comment about "...sailors selling their story...". Would they not have otherwise said, " Our loyal sailors denied the right to tell the truth"?

I normally refrain from commenting on some of the simplistic, single issue thinking that I read on this Forum. Maybe the instant pundits should stop and ponder what a great thinker once said, " Any nation gets the government it deserves.".

Roger in France.

[Colin Bishop]

From somebody I know on the inside, I'd say that in this case the Telegraph has got it about right. I don't read the paper myself, too right wing for me. I know for a fact that a certain vital technical training course for officers has been cut from over 30 sessions to 4 which means they won't understand properly how to use the equipment they are responsible for. Also, a number of our first line warships are "rustbuckets" in urgent need of replacement.

Obviously the Navy wants the best it can get and needs to be challenged on that where appropriate but I don't think the politicians have the fundamental understanding or competence to make the vital decisions. Not much new in that of course as the lessons of history teach us. Remember it was the run down of the Navy that caused Argentina to chance their arm on the Falklands. Prior to the invasion the Government had received warnings about the danger of reducing our naval presence but blithely ignored them. They were quite happy to praise the forces once the Islands had been retaken and a few hundred people had died and never acknowledged that the whole thing could have been avoided in the first place.

Sweden and Switzerland don't run their forces down because they are peace loving neutrals. They have very sharp teeth and make it clear that they will bite if anyone messes with them.

If the Government wants Britain to have a global peacekeeping role, which it apparently does given the number of conflicts we seem to be embroiled in, then the Forces have to be adequately resourced. Otherwise the gap between political aspirations and military capability will be filled with dead and wounded servicemen.

I have never served in the military but I have read my history and the signs are not good.

[tigertiger]

Hi Roger

I cannot help but comment here to ad and ex-serviceman's perspective.
This is not a rant BTW but just a perspective.
I was army and not navy i need to point out.
I would also like to point out that I am not Tory.

"The British RN has always been the greatest and therefore must be equipped to the highest level"
The RN used to be the strongest, largest navy in the world. Like the British army. however I doubt the RN was always the best equipped, I know the Army wasn't, and even today the US Army call the Brit Army 'The Borrowers'. Back in the 80's we were affectionately referred to as the best trained but worst equipped army in NATO.
After the effects of Exocets in the Falklands it was clear that Navy ships needed to be equipped with 'Goalkeeper', as a matter of urgency. This is a radar controlled Gatling gun, that puts up a 'wall of lead' that stops missiles like Exocet. By 1990 the ships had stillnot been equipped, I don't know if they ever were.

"Just look at it's comment about "...sailors selling their story...". Would they not have otherwise said, " Our loyal sailors denied the right to tell the "truth"?"
The issue here was never about cover-ups. It was about the Secretary of State not knowing his job.
Acting servicemen have never been allowed to talk to the press, only senior officers are trained to talk to the press. Irrespectve of if people this is right or wrong, the Minister should know his job, this was the issue here.

As an aside the Telegraph is seen as an 'establishment' newspaper and was the favoured newspaper in the officers mess when I was in the army.

And if I can add a line from a song about life in America and Veterans.
'Grandson he comes home from college, says "we get the government we deserve"
Son-in-law just shakes his head and says "that little punk, he's never had to serve".'

[w3bby]

Sweden and Switzerland don't run their forces down because they are peace loving neutrals. They have very sharp teeth and make it clear that they will bite if anyone messes with them.

From someone living in Sweden this has to be the best joke I have heard for a long time

Which coast do you want the boat on????

[Colin Bishop]

Well, you have the Vasa don't you? 

[tigertiger]

Well, you have the Vasa don't you? 

And the Gotenberg 

She invaded China last year.

[swordfish fairey]

Just to comment on what tigertiger said about goalkeeper. The navy got the Vulcan Phalanx almost immediately after the Falklands but Goalkeeper did not come in for a few years. The Goalkeeper system infact uses a Vulcan gun very similar to the one fitted to the A-10 aircraft. The major difference between the two systems is the phalanx can be bolted onto nearly any strong deck whereas Goalkeeper has to have infrastructure under the gun for its ammo supply. Goalkeeper can also engage multiple targets (up to 16 I believe) phalanx one at a time.The picture is of a Goalkeeper fitted to the Illustrious, the invincible also has Goalkeeper, the Ark retains Phalanx..Hope this is of some interest................Smudge :) :)

[Colin Bishop]

Pity they couldn't have shifted the Goalkeeper from Invincible to the Ark given that Invincible is now effectively permanently decommisioned and will presumably be used as a source of spares for the other two.

[swordfish fairey]

Hi Colin, good idea that, but the plan as I hear it is to keep her untill at least 2010 on low level standby, that means she should ( note the use of should) be ready for service at short notice........Smudge

[justboatonic]

The torygraph wants it both ways. It wants a strong, well equipped army forces but doesnt want the tax hikes to pay for it, unless its the current colour of Government which it can then go on about tax rises etc, etc.

The plain simple fact is our armed forces have been punching above their weight since the end of the second world war. Sad state of affairs but nonetheless true.

Course we could always stop all social security, pensions, NHS etc to give enough money for equipment!

[Colin H]

Not all social security just stop the payments to the idle layabouts of which there are plenty.

Reserve the NHS for those who have contributed.

Sack 50% of the manager's in both outfits.

Result plenty of money for the force's and maybe even a decent rise in state pension.

Don't hold your breath though the politicians will get their snouts in th trough before any mony is released to good cause's.

I hate politicians all politicians more than insurance companies and thats saying something.

Yours on a box Colin H.

[Colin Bishop]

Government are willing to bail out Northern Rock with a blank cheque but don't fund the Forces in line with what they are expected to do. Just look at the Nimrod report today. save money - brave men die.

[RipSlider]

I think this issue has to be tempered with some economics and a reality check of sorts.

The question to ask is:
What do we need a navy for?

Any answer can be placed into one of two catorgaries: Offessive uses and Defensive uses.

An aircraft carrier and a battle ship is an offensive use of the navy. They exist to project force into area's where the other services can't get to.

Mine layers and fishery protection vessels are defensive, protective elements, equally, Attack submarines also fall into this catorgary.

There are some ships, like the new type 45 destroyers that can straddle these two lines, depending on how they are equipped.

There is no vector of warfare that NEEDS, as far as the UK is concerned, an "offensive" naval force. Everything that falls into this catorgary can be carried out, within the present and forseeable future, by the other two services, and to a higher level of accuracy, quality and cost effectiveness. Possibly there will on day be a NEED, rather than just a desire, for air craft carriers and similar purely offensive vessels, but as both the falklands and WWII showed, it is more than possible to either lash a solution together or purchase in bulk at a future point in time if required.

We're not the US, we're not China and we're not India. The requirement for the UK to project force at the other side of the world using "dedicated" offensive weapons has gone, and is unlikely to return for a long time, certainly as far as the 30 year Future Threat Analysis's are concerned. We are a small country, with few critical holdings, and a small economy. It makes no economic sense to have these sorts of platforms, and I've attended seminars where Navy men have agreed with the same statements.

Defensive vessels are a different issue. Defensive naval vessels and all the various components around them IS woefully underfunded, but defense isn't "Sexy", and so often gets over looked at budget time. This fault occurs both on the part of the Navy AND the government. From personal experience, I would say that if there you were to apportion "blame" to the two sides, it would fall 40:60 Navy to Government.

What I have seen happen is that the Offensive/sexy stuff gets given a great big dollop of any budget. At that point, your left with a huge list of less glamourous stuff, and what's left of the budget gets chopped up amongst these projects without an awful lot of care. I've project managed in this enviroment, and have seen the fact that, eventually, the less sexy stuff ends up as a bullet point on a powerpoint slide, and if the bullet point isn't interestingly written, it looses all or much of it's money for a whole fiscal year.

So why does the Navy spend money on offensive weapons and vessels that it's own research group admit isn't a useful cause?

Two reasons: firstly, the navy is fighting to survive, and big glamourous projects are easier to get the MoD to think about, and secondly becuase they have a huge chip on their shoulder about becoming a "second class service", and don't want to become a purely protective force.

If the government was more pragmatic, and the navy more sensible in approach, it would follow the advice of it's own research group, drop a lot of the offensive force projection, and use the same amount of budget to properly equip it's vessels and their crew with high quality weaponry.

Instead, you get the stupid situation where, for example, we order a whole load of type 45 destroyers, but they can't actually do much, because virtually all major components are to be added 3-10 years later, to save on budget. What's the point?

Steve

[RipSlider]

Not all social security just stop the payments to the idle layabouts of which there are plenty.

Reserve the NHS for those who have contributed.

Sack 50% of the manager's in both outfits.

Result plenty of money for the force's and maybe even a decent rise in state pension.

Don't hold your breath though the politicians will get their snouts in th trough before any mony is released to good cause's.

I hate politicians all politicians more than insurance companies and thats saying something.

Yours on a box Colin H.

It's not quite as easy as that though....

How do you define an "idle lay-about"? You and I can point to one in the street, but it's incredibly hard to write a description of one in a law, and make it actually work.

As for the NHS, I've contributed FAR more in NI payments than my grandfather ever did, and he was in WWII. I've also contributed far more than my father did, and he was in the services for 25 years. So should I get better treatment than he did?

We could set a limit ( we already do with state pensions ). How about "10 years NI contributions before NHS treatment". What happens if I have a great job for 9 years, and then cripple myself in an accident? Do I get treatment then, even if I previously had the potential to earn a lot for the NI system?

I'm not saying your wrong in what you say, infact, from experience, I would personally think that at LEAST 2/3'rds of NHS managers can get the boot, but working out how to actually do it, and keep things working, is an incredibly difficult issue.

As for the Northern Rock issue, the governemt had 3 nasty choices:

1) Let it collapse - which would have immediately started a systematic run on the banks. Lloyds TSB and Nationwide use very high gearing, just like the Rock, and were only days or weeks behind them. If three banks went over, we would have been in a catostrophic depression, far worse than the Great Depression of the 1930's, as the UK doesn't have any heavy industry to allow us to build our way out of it.

2) nationalise it - this would have meant taking £43 BILLION onto the national balance with immediate effect, and using tax payers money to back failed mortage payments, which would have raised far more hackles. It would have also immediately exempted the UK from many billions of euro's of EU payments as this is aginst EU rules. This isn't to say the EU is a "good thing", just that we would have been even more out of pocket.

3) Do what they did: The government isn't "giving" any one any money, they're loans. All they are doing is, for the short term, using the UK national balance as a "monopoly money marker" to say to the city "If everyone with a Northern Rock mortgage defaulted tomorrow, we would keep it going until the debt was sold". What's actually happening is that the Rock is being sold, and the new buyers will take on all debt at the rock, including that owed to the bank of England. The only real sweetener that is being offered is that the buyers can pay the loans at BoE base rate, rather than penalty rates.... The Government makes a profit.


Neither the waste in the NHS/benefits system or the issues with the rock is a good thing. It's an atrocious thing and I hate it.

I'm just saying that when you get issues this big, they are always far more complicated than a brief glimpse shows.

Steve

[Colin H]

Steve,

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you said in your post I tend to disagree with some points.

You say that dedicated offensive warfare can be better carried out by the other 2 services, I presume you mean the army and the RAF.
This would be fine if we were thinking of fighting a war in continental Europe, where our aircraft carrier is the UK and support for the army can be flown from there.
Anywhere else in the world we would need carrier based aircraft to support land based operations and going on from there they (the carriers) would need support vessels to allow them to operate.

If we had lost 1 carrier during the Falklands war we would have lost that conflict. It was a very close run thing both in air power and the lack of equipment ammo etc. A close friend of mine serving with the 9 mile drop shorts ended the conflict with just 20 rounds of 105mm ammo between 3 guns.

There are two options really
(1) withdraw from the world stage and become a defensive force. Of course you would throw away whats left of our arms industry with the loss of 1000's of jobs and millions in lost exports.

(2) Have a correctly formatted unified armed force however small with the correct weapons and support to do the job in the safest(if thats the correct word in this context) way possible.

Yours Colin H.

[gingyer]

Have a correctly formatted unified armed force

Colin,
When you say unified what is it you mean exactly?

If you mean merging the three services then you are wrong in my opinion
The canadians did this and it is not working.
The only way to go is we have a major over haul of the political system
and the money saved will probably pay for the new carriers and extra T45 destroyers

Colin

[bigfella]

Hi All

Australia used to have the best and biggest Navy in our region. Now we have nothing more than a Border Patrol. We need a bigger navy presence being a Large Island with thousands of miles of uninhabited coastline that you could land a countries whole army on and no one would notice for years.

In regards to over administration especially in Hospitals.
For 1 bed in a hospital there are 6 admin staff.
For every 6 beds there is 1 nurse per shift.
does that seem a bit unbalanced.

Regards David

[Colin Bishop]

Sorry Steve, but I have to take issue with a lot of what you have said - in the nicest possible way of course!  :)

Our forces exist for two purposes, the defence of the Realm and as an instrument of the policy of the Government of the Day.

Britain doesn't have a small economy, ours is the 5th largest in the World and most of our goods are shipped in. We therefore have a vested interest in protecting our sources of supply, especially oil of course.

We have been here before. Back in the Seventies I vividly remember similar arguments to yours being put forward. It was decided that the Navy didn't need to operate east of Suez. It was decided that we didn't need a naval air air capability because the RAF could do the job. The Navy was run down as a consequence. Bad decision! It was subsequently demonstrated that the Navy did need to operate east of Suez in support of British interests. The RAF couldn't provide the necessary air cover either. After much lobbying the Navy did manage to get its "Through Deck Cruisers", the Invincible class although they were initially limited to helicopter operation only. Even then, the Conservative Government proposed to sell them off which encouraged Argentinia to try and take the Falklands. I won't go on citing other examples, but as somebody has pointed out elsewhere, you don't deter potential aggression by going into defensive mode and pulling up the drawbridge. Switzerland might get away with that approach but a country that relies on overseas trade to the extent that we do simply cannot. Sea power is still important and many of Alfred Mahan's principles are just as valid now as when they were written. During the Cold War the RN was a vital element in maintaining the security of the West. Now we see Russia flexing her muscles again, sending bomber patrols to probe Western defences and rebuilding her Navy. The lessons of history are clear and only a fool would ignore them. If you are weak then you will be overrun.  Don't let the veneer of "civilisation" fool you. Human nature is the same as it always was. the weak go to the wall - and we are becoming weak because our politicians don't understand these fundamental principles.

It frightens me.

Colin

[Colin H]

Colin, Sorry unified was totally the wrong word, I would not for one minute thing of uniting our services.

I still can't think of the correct phrase but basically the three services have worked together for the greater good of the individual service for years now and must continue to do so.

When in the army my job was forward armoured recce and it was awfully nice to have a couple of ground attack aircraft to call on should the need arise. I personally did not care if they were RAF or Navy just so long as they were there. Hence my belief that we must have navel air power.

Hope this explains Yours Colin H.

And well said Mr Bishop spot on.

[RipSlider]

Steve,

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you said in your post I tend to disagree with some points.

You say that dedicated offensive warfare can be better carried out by the other 2 services, I presume you mean the army and the RAF.
This would be fine if we were thinking of fighting a war in continental Europe, where our aircraft carrier is the UK and support for the army can be flown from there.
Anywhere else in the world we would need carrier based aircraft to support land based operations and going on from there they (the carriers) would need support vessels to allow them to operate.

If we had lost 1 carrier during the Falklands war we would have lost that conflict. It was a very close run thing both in air power and the lack of equipment ammo etc. A close friend of mine serving with the 9 mile drop shorts ended the conflict with just 20 rounds of 105mm ammo between 3 guns.

There are two options really
(1) withdraw from the world stage and become a defensive force. Of course you would throw away whats left of our arms industry with the loss of 1000's of jobs and millions in lost exports.

(2) Have a correctly formatted unified armed force however small with the correct weapons and support to do the job in the safest(if thats the correct word in this context) way possible.

Yours Colin H.

I guess the issue all revolves around your question with the two options:

The brutal fact of the matter is we are NOT on the world stage, no matter how much we would like to be. We are NOT the US, We are NOT China and we are NOT india. We are a small country with a big history and a national desire to meddle in other countries affairs. These however arn't reasons to have an offensive Navy. Firstly, the situation today is vastly different to the Falklands. We can project force anywhere in the world with the RAF, either using the friendly airbases that we have spent billions to "make friendly", usually by selling tanks and missles to their governments, and we have far better in flight re-fueling and GPS. Combined, there is no where in the world we actually NEED an aircraft carrier and it's billions in additional support. A recent report by some group in New zealand reckons that the US can put a plane anywhere in the world in 45 minutes, and we ( UK ) can put one there in 60. And they can stay in theater indefinitely. Link is somewhere on FAS.Org

So why try to buy our way in? we won't be on it anyway. And as for the arms exports - well, per capita, the UK is the largest arms exporter in the world. By GDP, we are the fourth largest in the world. In pure sales terms, we are the 5th largest in the world ( source: FAS). That won't change by us dumping a offensive navy.


To colin:

Totally OK to disgree, that's one of the main jobs of a forum!!! But again I would say that we are not in the same position as we were during Suez. We have in-flight refueling and GPS, and so there is no need for aircraft carriers. Having sat in a number of lectures given by an Admirmal running the future warfare wing of the Navy, who said the same, I can also say that these are not purely my idea's.

As you said, a goverments first task is "defense of the realm", and this is why I said that defensive ships are critical. The UK IS an island, and we must never be placed in a situation where we risk being cut off. And that is why attack subs, mine hunters, some destroyers etc are needed. However, there never is, and never will be a NEED, soley in order to defend the realm, where an aircraft carrier, for example, is needed. An air craft carrier is a purely offensive platform. We weren't defending the realm in Suez. Possibly we were in the Falklands, althought that's a very different, political, issue, and one that papers and lectures are still being written about 20 years later. We certainly aren't in Iraq, or putting ships into the tiawanese straits.

As to the russian bomber patrols: what's to be frightened of? they have flown them every day since WWII, so it's nothing new. And where do the interceptors/AWAC/Anti-subs heli's/Planes that are "combatting" these ariel and naval patrols launch from? Scotland, Iceland and Norway. VERY few ship borne sorties recently. I think the figure is less than 3%.

You said that history has shown that the weak will be over-run. Well, it does kind of depend on which bit of history you look at. Take, for example, the swiss. How many times have they been over run in recent history? They have a very limited armed forces, but they have made it clear to the world that they will defend their realm totally and at all costs. Their entire armed forces make up is a defensive one, and they back this up with a scortched earth policy.

With the UK, it is a little different. We are an island, so do need a navy. Yet we have NO need for a offensive one, just one that can ensure, at all costs and in any time or year, or state of hostility, that Britain can be supplied. And that's a purely defensive one.

What I'm not suggesting is any cuts in the budget, just that the budget is used better.

[Colin Bishop]

Even with in flight refuelling the RAF have a limited radius of action. The so called "friendly" airbases will evaporate if the host nation so decides and can't be relied upon. Russian bomber flights stopped after the Cold War ended but restarted earlier this year. At the moment GPS is dependent on the USA making it available. The European version may not be on line for years yet. (and the Chinese have demonstrated they can shoot satellites down anyway.)

Just defending the UK is not enough if the sources of our fuel/imports are intercepted beyond our operating range and we are powerless to do anything about it It's the old commerce raider principle again. The methods change but the principles of sea power don't.

Switzerland shares borders with several nations thus it would be difficult to "cut off" unless there is a universal European conflict. If we can't deter attacks on shipping heading towards our ports then we starve. It has almost happened twice in recent history could easily happen again. that's what the Soviet submarine fleet was for among other things.

Apart from all that, like it or not there is still the "World Policeman" role. Should we leave this entirely to the US? Should we withdraw from Columbian drug smuggling operations and just sit back and let the stuff in, there's plenty enough as it is! Granted, these are policy issues with which you may or may not agree. On the one hand you can argue it's none of our business, let somebody else sort it out. on the other you can argue that as a first world democracy we have a responsibility to step in where others are unable to do so. The difference between that and being "offensive" of course lies in the eye of the beholder!

Aircarft carriers give us independence of action and flexibility of options that can be achieved in no other way. Personally I'm all for them - if you haven't already guessed. 

 

[Shipmate60]

Steve,
I have started answering you several times tonight, but my answer was getting longer than your statements.
BUT
I have to answer your last statements as they are naive in the extreme.
I have the utmost respect for our Armed Forces and presently am working in direct support of the RN.
None so far has quoted why we need strong Armed Forces, and that is to satisfy the politicians in keeping our seat on the Security Council!!
Your theory about pure air power and in flight refueling is some 30 years out of date.
In any conflict there is an requirement for integrated forces, not just a "bomb em" mentality.
If a country has a sea port then their Armed Forces are resupplied via this.
1 cargo ship can carry far more munitions than trucks!!
The REAL state of the navy now is DIRE. An ageing fleet with speed restrictions ON THE HULL, restricted firing capability due to the same.
You also forget NATO, as an active part of NATO the UK was to provide the majority of anti-submarine cover for any NATO fleet.
With the run down in the number of hulls this is now under threat.
You also fail to mention the proposed DISBANDENMENT of ANY minesweeping/hunting capability.
3 minelaying aircraft could conceivably bottle up the whole RN in hours.
The Tactical Threat Indicator (TTI) is at its highest since the end of the second world war, what peace dividend?
I still believe we have the best servicemen anywhere in the world, bar none. But penny-pinching politicians are undermining the morale of our servicemen (and women)
We have the best Main Battle Tank in the world, but not enough of them, we are running down our interceptor squadrons, and simply don't have a bomber worth calling that name.
I believe that as a country we should have strong Armed Forces, well paid, well compensated when injured and well housed.
Do we have any of these things.
NO

Bob

[Turbulent]

After the effects of Exocets in the Falklands it was clear that Navy ships needed to be equipped with 'Goalkeeper', as a matter of urgency. This is a radar controlled Gatling gun, that puts up a 'wall of lead' that stops missiles like Exocet. By 1990 the ships had stillnot been equipped, I don't know if they ever were.

- I went down south in '84 & all we had fitted were extra Oerlikons & the then new B Marks!, I think it's always been the same, how many destroyers did we borrow in 1941?, look what Labour did to the Navy, Army & Airforce in the late 70's & what this bunch of Morons are doing now.

Here's an interesting fact 7 this is straight from the "horses mouth" Hms Vanguard, you know, our Nuclear deterent is in such a bad state of repair she leaks over 9 litres per hour through her stern gland whilst surfaced!.

But as they say, if you cant take a joke, dont join the Navy!!