Royal Navy to be cut and capable of only "one small-scale operation"

Westcountryman · 01-10-2007, 02:04 AM

Labour's secret plans to slash the Navy

By Melissa Kite and Patrick Hennessy
Last Updated: 1:59am BST 01/10/2007

Ministers have drawn up confidential proposals to slash the number of ships in the Royal Navy, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

The expected reductions follow a fierce row between Service chiefs and the Treasury over defence spending.

The Ministry of Defence has produced a plan to ecommission five warships from next April, which would reduce the Navy's capability to the level where it could carry out only "one small-scale operation".

Separate documentation from inside the department suggests that the total number of ships in the Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary could fall from the present level of 103 to 76 in 2017 and only 50 in 2027 — a reduction of more than half.

The information has been supplied in an email from a whistleblowing official inside the MoD, who has given details of a row between senior officials in the department and Andy Burnham, the Treasury Chief Secretary, over the allocation of money to the MoD over the next three years.

The deal, sealed under the Comprehensive Spending Review and announced in July, gave the MoD an annual increase of 1.5 per cent above inflation for the years 2008-11.
advertisement

However, it also contained a commitment to buy two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, at a cost of £4 billion — meaning savings had to be found elsewhere if the MoD were to meet its "operational commitments."

The email reads: "The Chief Sec directed that no further money from the CSR would be allocated to Defence and to maintain force levels the Dept must find the savings/cuts.

"For the RN [Royal Navy], the poor CSR deal and the commitment to 2 carriers is such that a proposal for the immediate decommissioning of 5 ships (frigates and destroyers) from April next year has been considered.

"This would reduce the RN's capabilities to just one small scale operation and that is it."

Sources said that under the plan the Navy, once the pride of the Armed Forces, would be unable to provide anything like the 1982 Falklands task force.

In what is likely to be a "worst-case" scenario, with no further commissioning of ships, total numbers of what the MoD terms "platforms" is slated to fall steadily from 103 to 50 within 20 years.

The number of submarines would be cut from 13 to 11 in 2007-08 while there would be two aircraft carriers rather than the present three. Frigates would be cut from 17 to nine, while the number of destroyers would go up, from six to eight, but only because more have already been commissioned.

There would be no minesweepers or patrol ships, while the number of landing vessels would be cut from eight to six.

The disclosures are likely to embarrass Gordon Brown, who has long been viewed with some suspicion within the Services. During his time as chancellor he was thought to regard the MoD as one of the most "financially wasteful" of all Whitehall departments. However, as Prime Minister he has been keen to be seen as a strong supporter of the Armed Forces.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "Any reduction in our forces' size at present would be insane, given our unsafe world and the level of our current deployments. No wonder there are suggestions Gordon Brown is considering a complete withdrawal from Iraq. His own cuts to our Armed Forces may leave him with no option."

Colonel Tim Collins, a former Iraq war commander, said: "The Armed Forces are once more facing the squeeze and once again it looks like the Royal Navy will bear the brunt.

"There are no votes in defence, as was reflected in last week's conference speech by the Prime Minister in which Afghanistan and Iraq, Labour's wars, were mentioned only once each."

An MoD spokesman said last night: "No decisions have been taken to make changes to force structures. As ever, we continually review the defence programme.

"The CSR settlement sees the continuation of the longest period of sustained real-terms growth in planned defence spending since the 1980s."

Labour's secret plans to slash the Navy - Telegraph
-----------------------------

Once again the Senior Service suffers at the hands of the government. Is there any doubt that the Royal Navy will continue to crumble until it's small and ineffectual? We need serious investment in the Armed Forces if the UK is serious about maintaining its independent military capability and defending British interests at home and abroad. Perhaps the problem is that the government is not serious about such things.

Britannist · 01-10-2007, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernUKIP

Melissa Kite/Patrick Hennessy - S. Telegraph 1.10.2007: Ministers have drawn up confidential proposals to slash the number of ships in the Royal Navy, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

The expected reductions follow a fierce row between Service chiefs and the Treasury over defence spending.

The Ministry of Defence has produced a plan to ecommission five warships from next April, which would reduce the Navy's capability to the level where it could carry out only "one small-scale operation".

Smaller Royal Navy and Labour cutting the number of ships. Typical of this lot in power. I hope the above news is circulated widely in naval cities such as Plymouth and Portsmouth where tens of thousands of people are either employed in the Royal Navy (RN) or who have family and/or friends who are. Hopefully Labour will then lose all of the seats they hold in and around Portsmouth and Plymouth (and elsewhere) when the next General Election is held.

It says above the RN could end up only being able to handle "one small-scale operation". What we need, of course, is a very large RN which can deal with several big operations (i.e. in the event of the Falklands, Gibraltar and perhaps one other UK possession being invaded at the same time).

Westcountryman · 01-10-2007, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

Smaller Royal Navy and Labour cutting the number of ships. Typical of this lot in power. I hope the above news is circulated widely in naval cities such as Plymouth and Portsmouth where tens of thousands of people are either employed in the Royal Navy (RN) or who have family and/or friends who are. Hopefully Labour will then lose all of the seats they hold in and around Portsmouth and Plymouth (and elsewhere) when the next General Election is held..

Britannist, last I heard the surface fleet was being pulled out of Devonport and re-based, effectively ending any future for HMNB Devonport - despite Plymouth's historical connection with the Royal Navy.

As I'm sure you can imagine, the drop in funding (combined with the closure of RAF St. Mawgan) is going to give the South West economy a rather large kick in the teeth.

Britannist · 01-10-2007, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernUKIP

Britannist, last I heard the surface fleet was being pulled out of Devonport and re-based, effectively ending any future for HMNB Devonport - despite Plymouth's historical connection with the Royal Navy.

As I'm sure you can imagine, the drop in funding (combined with the closure of RAF St. Mawgan) is going to give the South West economy a rather large kick in the teeth.

Cuts in or the ending of Devonport would be a disaster for Plymouth and for the whole country. We must do everything we can to stop cuts in any of the UK armed forces - including the Royal Navy.

If a General Election is only weeks away, Labour are unlikely to admit to such cuts yet - they'll wait until all the ballot boxes are shut.

I am very angry to read of the threats from this Government to Plymouth and Portsmouth - the Labour regime must stopped or made to pay heavily in an election if they go ahead and cut the number of ships and/or run down Devonport or Portsmouth docks.

What we need is more money spent on the armed forces and a Royal Navy much larger than the one we have now. We need to be ready to defend our islands in the south Atlantic, Gibraltar and other UK territories with a strong military.

John Welch · 01-10-2007, 06:56 AM

The new aircraft-carriers will be vital in the major issue of the South Atlantic, crucial for the wool-supply to build the uniforms for the Army. The Falklands must stand to repel the aggro Argies in their big push east. Defence industries await the word to pour out the steel and munitions (or at least borrow some US boats).

01-10-2007, 02:04 AM	#1 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,922 Party: None	Royal Navy to be cut and capable of only "one small-scale operation" Labour's secret plans to slash the Navy By Melissa Kite and Patrick Hennessy Last Updated: 1:59am BST 01/10/2007 Ministers have drawn up confidential proposals to slash the number of ships in the Royal Navy, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose. The expected reductions follow a fierce row between Service chiefs and the Treasury over defence spending. The Ministry of Defence has produced a plan to ecommission five warships from next April, which would reduce the Navy's capability to the level where it could carry out only "one small-scale operation". Separate documentation from inside the department suggests that the total number of ships in the Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary could fall from the present level of 103 to 76 in 2017 and only 50 in 2027 — a reduction of more than half. The information has been supplied in an email from a whistleblowing official inside the MoD, who has given details of a row between senior officials in the department and Andy Burnham, the Treasury Chief Secretary, over the allocation of money to the MoD over the next three years. The deal, sealed under the Comprehensive Spending Review and announced in July, gave the MoD an annual increase of 1.5 per cent above inflation for the years 2008-11. advertisement However, it also contained a commitment to buy two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, at a cost of £4 billion — meaning savings had to be found elsewhere if the MoD were to meet its "operational commitments." The email reads: "The Chief Sec directed that no further money from the CSR would be allocated to Defence and to maintain force levels the Dept must find the savings/cuts. "For the RN [Royal Navy], the poor CSR deal and the commitment to 2 carriers is such that a proposal for the immediate decommissioning of 5 ships (frigates and destroyers) from April next year has been considered. "This would reduce the RN's capabilities to just one small scale operation and that is it." Sources said that under the plan the Navy, once the pride of the Armed Forces, would be unable to provide anything like the 1982 Falklands task force. In what is likely to be a "worst-case" scenario, with no further commissioning of ships, total numbers of what the MoD terms "platforms" is slated to fall steadily from 103 to 50 within 20 years. The number of submarines would be cut from 13 to 11 in 2007-08 while there would be two aircraft carriers rather than the present three. Frigates would be cut from 17 to nine, while the number of destroyers would go up, from six to eight, but only because more have already been commissioned. There would be no minesweepers or patrol ships, while the number of landing vessels would be cut from eight to six. The disclosures are likely to embarrass Gordon Brown, who has long been viewed with some suspicion within the Services. During his time as chancellor he was thought to regard the MoD as one of the most "financially wasteful" of all Whitehall departments. However, as Prime Minister he has been keen to be seen as a strong supporter of the Armed Forces. Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "Any reduction in our forces' size at present would be insane, given our unsafe world and the level of our current deployments. No wonder there are suggestions Gordon Brown is considering a complete withdrawal from Iraq. His own cuts to our Armed Forces may leave him with no option." Colonel Tim Collins, a former Iraq war commander, said: "The Armed Forces are once more facing the squeeze and once again it looks like the Royal Navy will bear the brunt. "There are no votes in defence, as was reflected in last week's conference speech by the Prime Minister in which Afghanistan and Iraq, Labour's wars, were mentioned only once each." An MoD spokesman said last night: "No decisions have been taken to make changes to force structures. As ever, we continually review the defence programme. "The CSR settlement sees the continuation of the longest period of sustained real-terms growth in planned defence spending since the 1980s." Labour's secret plans to slash the Navy - Telegraph ----------------------------- Once again the Senior Service suffers at the hands of the government. Is there any doubt that the Royal Navy will continue to crumble until it's small and ineffectual? We need serious investment in the Armed Forces if the UK is serious about maintaining its independent military capability and defending British interests at home and abroad. Perhaps the problem is that the government is not serious about such things. __________________ Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty." Last edited by Westcountryman; 01-10-2007 at 02:19 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-10-2007, 06:56 AM	#5 (permalink)
John Welch Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 180	The new aircraft-carriers will be vital in the major issue of the South Atlantic, crucial for the wool-supply to build the uniforms for the Army. The Falklands must stand to repel the aggro Argies in their big push east. Defence industries await the word to pour out the steel and munitions (or at least borrow some US boats).