| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Caribbean-Latin America | ||
| Falkland Islands to be left without warship | ||
| 2008-12-08 | ||
| The Falkland Islands are to be left without the protection of a British warship for the first time since the war with Argentina because the Royal Navy no longer has enough ships to meet all its commitments. The frigate HMS Northumberland, which is armed with guided missiles, torpedoes and a Lynx helicopter, was due to be sent on patrol to the islands this month. But it will now be replaced by a Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) vessel not equipped for offensive combat operations. The controversial decision was forced on senior naval commanders by the increasing problem of overstretch facing the Royal Navy. Cuts to the size of the fleet over the last 10-years – the Royal Navy has just 22 frigates and destroyers compared to 65 in 1982 – has left the service with too few ships to meet its responsibilities. The Telegraph also understands that the Royal Navy is likely to face more cuts in the near future while major projects such as the £3.9bn new carrier programme could be delayed. Ageing vessels such as Type 23 frigates, which were commissioned in the late 1980s, will have their service life extended by up to 20-years. The last time the British government reduced its naval presence in the South Atlantic was in 1982 when the ice patrol vessel HMS Endurance was withdrawn from patrolling the area around the Falkland Islands. The move prompted an invasion by the Argentine military and led to the Falklands War. HMS Northumberland was due to begin a six-month voyage in the South Atlantic but has been diverted to take part in the European Union counter-piracy mission off the coast of east Africa.
The size of the military force on the Falklands has been dramatically reduced since the end of the war in 1982. The islands are garrisoned by just 50 soldiers, composed of infantry, engineers and signallers. The RAF has four Tornado F3 air defence aircraft and crews to maintain them while the naval component consists of just one ship.
One senior naval source said that successive cuts by the government had left the Royal Navy vulnerable and unable to properly defend its interests overseas. He said: "The Royal Navy has been pared to the bone. The fleet is now so small that the Royal Navy can't even send a proper warship to guard the Falklands. By the time the Royal Navy has met all of its operational obligations there is nothing left and that is why a civilian-crewed Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship has been sent to the Falklands. "In any shooting war with a serious enemy the Royal Navy would cease to exist within a few weeks. Rock bottom is an appropriate description of where the Royal Navy now is." A Ministry of Defence document leaked to The Telegraph last year revealed that the Royal Navy would struggle to fight a war against a "technologically capable adversary". The report also stated that the Royal Navy was an "under-resourced" fleet composed of "ageing and operationally defective ships". Admiral Sir Alan West, a former Chief of the Naval Staff, and who is a security minister in the Lords, has previously warned that the reduction in the fighting capability of the Royal navy could cost lives and gave warning that Britain would end up with a "tinpot" Navy if more money were not spent on defence. Liam Fox, the shadow Tory defence spokesman, said: "The Government needs to explain how this won’t impact on the security of the Falklands. What on earth are we doing putting EU flag waving ahead of our own security priorities? It is outrageous that the British Government would ever diminish the protection of our strategic interests in order to pay homage to the politics of the EU." A spokesman for the MoD, said: "The government is fully committed to the defence of the Falkland Islands. There is a whole package of assets – air, sea and land assigned to the region, not simply one ship. The Royal Navy maintains the flexibility to redeploy its ships to where they will have maximum effect." | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 "America alone is becoming much more than an apt and catchy book title." It won't even be that shortly. |
| Posted by: Thens Hatfield2468 2008-12-08 23:40 |
| #10 ION WORLD MIL FORUM > INTERFAX - RUSSIA MAY ABOLISH MOST OF ITS GROUND FORCES ARMY DIVISIONS OVER NEXT THREE YEARS [ = 2012?], LEAVING ONLY 270,000 REGULAR/PROFESSIONAL TROOPS [not counting Milyuhns of Reservists] TO DEFEND ITS NATIONAL TERRITORIES. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-12-08 22:36 |
| #9 The Falk's might be without a warship, but it's far worse than that. The UK is without the WILL to survive as a contributing memeber of Western Civilization. |
| Posted by: MarkZ 2008-12-08 15:50 |
| #8 Seems to me that starting a shipbuilding project would boost England's economy Wot? And divert funds from Her Majesty's Dole Queue? |
| Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats 2008-12-08 14:28 |
| #7 I don't think the US gov would have the tolerance for the Argies today that we had in 1982. So wait until Jan 20 before making any move. Besides, the real striking power comes from aircraft. A frigate would not last long. Might as well have a cost guard cutter or two and chase of illegal fisherman. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-12-08 13:09 |
| #6 To bad those Brits weren't aware of this little piece of law about Reserve Officer Appointments - (b) Except as otherwise provided by law, the Secretary concerned shall prescribe physical, mental, moral, professional, and age qualifications for the appointment of persons as Reserves of the armed forces under his jurisdiction. However, no person may be appointed as a Reserve unless he is at least 18 years of age and - (1) he is a citizen of the United States or has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); I recall a former Royal Artillery officer going through my commissioning program doing just that. Those who want 'amnesty' for a million plus illegals, I'd certainly demand an opportunity for those qualified and speak [literally] the mother tongue, to have a shot at continuing their calling. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-12-08 12:59 |
| #5 Given her current economic and political problems Cristina Kirchner may find a military adventure useful. Brown is no Thatcher. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2008-12-08 12:53 |
| #4 One of the most depressing things in Baghdad was the unbroken string of British officers in our office (they'd generally cycle through every 6-8 months) who were completely demoralized by their nation's abandonment of the military enterpise in general. These folks were terrifically impressive and fantastic to be around, in all the ways one would associate with a British officer - yet to varying but mostly significant degrees they had given up, several were looking for early exits. They came from every branch and had interesting and varied backgrounds including procurement and training as well as operations. Even the least pessimistic ones wouldn't argue the case that there was much hope, they just had an irrepressibly positive approach to life. America alone is becoming much more than an apt and catchy book title. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-12-08 12:00 |
| #3 Cant afford no navy, got to feed their mooks. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-12-08 11:59 |
| #2 Seems to me that starting a shipbuilding project would boost England's economy, and fix the Royal Navy's problems all at once. |
| Posted by: Rednek Jim 2008-12-08 11:52 |
| #1 bad move. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-12-08 11:50 |