You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
Cash-strapped UK navy cuts destroyer fleet
2008-10-04
The Royal Navy has mothballed almost half of its remaining fleet of destroyers as it desperately attempts to save money in the face of a plunging budget.

The Fleet now has just five air defence warships left to protect vessels missile or aircraft attack at a time when other nations such as China, India and Iran are investing heavily in anti-ship warfare.

Three Type 42 destroyers -- Exeter, Nottingham and Southampton -- have been "parked up" in Portsmouth at "reduced readiness" up to two years before they were due to be decommissioned.

Falklands War veterans are particularly angry after Exeter, the last serving operational ship from the campaign in which it shot down several Argentine fighters, was refused permission to fly a paying-off pennant when it entered harbour after its last mission.
Can't have any of that retro patriotic nonsense - didn't those vets get the multiculti post-imperial memo?
Britain's force of destroyers and frigates has now been reduced from 35 to 22 in the last decade despite government promises it would not slip below 25. It will be another two years before the first of six of the highly sophisticated Type 45 destroyers can be deployed on operations leaving a "gaping hole" in defences.

Pressures on the Navy's budget are immense with cuts of 20 per cent predicted in the next decade reducing the ship building budget to by £4 billion to £14 billion.

Senior Navy commanders have told The Daily Telegraph that the nation is taking "serious risks" in protecting carrier groups or amphibious flotillas and have accused the Government of neglecting the Fleet that protects the 90 per cent of Britain's imported trade.

It has already ditched the excellent air protection offered by Sea Harriers which were disbanded two years ago and at least two Type 42s have gone on operations with their advanced Sea Dart air defence missiles disabled to save cash.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the Government was attempting to "castrate the Navy" by tying up ships in dock. "This is an unacceptable price to pay for the Government's failure to plan properly at a time when we facing increasing demands to intercept drugs, arms, people smuggling, pirates as well as conduct operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Richard Scott, Editor of Jane's Navy International, said the Navy was taking "risk on risk" with its neglect of anti-air and anti-submarine warfare. "Type 42 destroyers have crept over horizon without anyone noticing. We have lost a third of the fleet in the last 10 years. The question remains is where's it all going to end up?"
So it's clear why the Brits can't, for example, help with anti-piracy operations off Somalia ...
With the Armed Forces so overstretched the Navy has been forced to provide sailors and Royal Marines to fight in land-locked Afghanistan where it will make up half the force of 8,000 British troops for the next six months. The deployment has used up valuable training time and manpower.

Exeter and Southampton are due to retire in 2009, with Nottingham, which was severely damaged after hitting a rock off Australia in 2002, scheduled to decommission in 2010. But they are unlikely to leave harbour again.

Despite the cuts Navy officers have indicated that the Navy continues to carry out secret surveillance operations against certain countries that cannot be reported.

"We are completely stuffed in terms of air defence and we are taking a hell of a risk with the sufficient resources to do the job properly," a Navy commander said. "But the Navy has done some incredible things against certain countries in last few weeks that we all should be proud of. But these types of skills are so precious that we cannot afford to diminish them any further."

Despite vehement Ministry of Defence denials The Daily Telegraph reported last year that the Navy faced losing half its fleet.

A Navy spokesman said the ships would remain "available for operations with the appropriate notice, if required".

"We ensure we have sufficient forces ready to meet the perceived threats,"
Posted by:lotp

#14  Hey, look at the bright side; once all the RN ships are laid up, Iran cannot capture any and humiliate the country by parading the sailors around. And the cash saved by NOT having to ransom them can then be used for other important things, like mookfare
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-10-04 20:35  

#13   the King would have to leave England

I suggest they outsource the navy to Blackwater or such and find someone who can pull the sword out of that damn stone.

And btw, nice rant JM!
Posted by: SteveS   2008-10-04 13:43  

#12  It seems that the best thing for England to do is for some of its wealthier citizens, along with the young men of the Royals, to form a private military in the Caribbean, as a latch ditch effort to save their nation from its elected government.

Importantly, *not* to overthrow the English government, but to have a reserve available in case, once England is disarmed, it is attacked or invaded by a domestic or foreign force in an effort to capture it.

Mostly light infantry, with a few light and fast blue water attack warships and commercial type aircraft to shuttle troops.

The majority of their personnel would be "honorable" foreigners, such as Gurkhas and Sikhs, willing to engage in ferocious, no quarter combat against their enemies, in an exterminate or be exterminated fight.

To authorize this, the King would have to leave England, appointing a Protector to restore order. Parliament would be dissolved, and those responsible for the disorder, foreign and domestic, would be put to the sword.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-10-04 12:26  

#11  Not to mention the USS Liberty.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-10-04 12:06  

#10  gromgoru's been provoking for a good long while.
Posted by: lotp   2008-10-04 12:00  

#9  Hey, that's getting a little harsh.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-10-04 11:24  

#8  JM is correct. Though he shows to much respect to the insolent little turd by providing him with an explanation for his feelings.
Posted by: Mike N.   2008-10-04 10:59  

#7  ouch
Posted by: bman   2008-10-04 10:05  

#6  Grom, you might try mustering sufficient class to at least be sympathetic. AS YOU KNOW, the reality is that if it wasn't for Britain, there would BE no country called Israel. They wrote the Balfour Declaration, pushed the Mandate through the League of Nations, allowed Jewish immigration for years in the teeth of massive Arab bitching and riot, protected you from those same Arabs who would have been happy to kill the lot of you, and insured victory over the man who would have seen the last of you sacrificed to Moloch.

You Jews OWED them big time and you paid them back with terror, murder and bombings simply for trying to maintain the law. I'm not British but the business of kidnapping and murdering Sergeants Paice and Martin is a lasting stench in the nostrils of decent people everywhere. They were innocent of anything except being British, and your people cold-bloodedly hung them and then booby-trapped the site.

Your people the British punished were bank robbers, bombers and assassins breaking the civil law. After your terror campaign against them, it would have been perfectly understandable if the British would have disarmed your people and let the Arabs run riot at your expense.

Instead, they honorably resigned the Mandate and refused to even provide ammunition to Glubb's Arab Legion when they ran low during the 1948 War. They treated your people a hell of a lot more decently than you treated them.

I've been, and am still, a strong supporter of Israel. I know what your country represents over in that part of the world and appreciate it for what it is. You, however, are one ungrateful S.O.B. because I've seen you criticize both America and Britain numerous times for trivial things when, if it wasn't for those two countries, you and your countrymen would have long since been fed to the flames of a new Auschwitz.

You and your country exist only because America has your back. The British are our allies who are bravely fighting side by side with us in two wars--wars that definitely benefit you and your country, by the way. You would do well to remember that before you start criticizing them on an American blog.
Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800   2008-10-04 08:01  

#5  IMO you dodged my bet Grom.
Posted by: .5MT   2008-10-04 07:55  

#4  Britain is not poor. This is an intentional policy. The end stages of terminal leftism. They could probably fund a credible Navy using the money they waste on paying welfare benefits to Muslim fundamentalists.
Posted by: Ulusoling Hatfield4645   2008-10-04 07:37  

#3  IMO, your patriotism is a bit misdirected .5MT---but have it your own way. Just one question---you've any idea how many mighty nations like your Britain we've seen come and go in the last four thousand years?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-10-04 06:51  

#2  Care to wager which country goes Islamik first Grom?

Posted by: .5MT   2008-10-04 06:23  

#1  We'll always remember Shakespeare & Kipling even after Britain is gone.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-10-04 05:49  

00:00