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
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Labour's secret plans to slash the Navy
2007-10-01
The Ministry of Defence has produced a plan to decommission 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. 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."
So they can have carriers, they just can't escort them ...
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."
Posted by:Seafarious

#13  BRITAIN > ROYAL NAVY'S RADIO-CONTROLLED SUPERSHIP. 'Tis to be a cross/hybrid bwtn an aircraft carrier and Type 45 Destroyer class, circa Year 2020.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-01 23:44  

#12  Who is NATO is/was tasked with extra-minesweeping?

The Germans.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-10-01 20:33  

#11  The 2 new carriers, once operational, will leave the British much better off to fight a Falklands type war than it was in 1982. As for cutting the military in favor of social programs, that's what socialists do. At least as a former finance minister, I hope he at least has a clue how to balance the budget.
Posted by: ed   2007-10-01 18:37  

#10  Brown has a hard on to spend all he can from the public purse on the NHS--with all the jobs for Islamist doctors that entails.
Posted by: Classical_Liberal   2007-10-01 18:04  

#9  Perhaps labour should just sell the Falklands before they are grabbed up again and the UK humiliated for their inability to reclaim their soverieng territory.

Might want to escalate the talks about Gibralter and other areas as well because once the Falklands go others will start to get funny ideas.

At least they can be certain nobody is gonna grab Diego Garcia as long as the current tennant (US Military) is willing to pay rent.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-10-01 17:52  

#8  Who is NATO is/was tasked with extra-minesweeping? The Dutch?
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-10-01 16:41  

#7  Australia has pretty much replaced the UK as the Special Relation. England's best hope is to secede from the UK and join EFTA.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-10-01 13:30  

#6  Righto LOTP, and as an added depressant, read the article and accompanying chart (and afew of the comments) which show a specific target in eliminating ALL minesweeping vessels. Practically an engraved invitation for "enemies" to invest NOW in naval mines and related technology.

If Britain feels no need for this portion of the fleet, it will be interesting to see any follow up commentary on how it addresses this - perhaps anti-mine naval air capability from the carriers? But see Seafarious's comment about escorting.

And we complain about congress providing advance notice of withdrawal and troop reduction deadlines? This is essentially a request for applicants to assume sovreignty right into the Thames estuary.
Posted by: Unomoling B. Hayes5535   2007-10-01 13:17  

#5  In other words, it would end US-UK military cooperation of the sort we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would end UK purchase of US mil tech and v.v.

Bottom line up front: it would end the special relationship. Intentionally and as a main goal, not accidently and as a side effect.
Posted by: lotp   2007-10-01 13:06  

#4  but IMO sounds like the Euros want EU Defense to be "specialized", wid major Euro nations having a Nation-specific NICHE FUNCTION/CONTRIBUTION

Yup. That would accomplish two things for them:

(1) cut down on the inefficiencies that have plagued multi-country design efforts for equipment

(2) lock the UK into the EU only for defense, since the Britain would give up the goal and reality of having a complete defense capability of her own
Posted by: lotp   2007-10-01 13:04  

#3  This flies in the face of the claims to various and sundry bits of sea floor that the Brits have been making to secure mineral rights. You can claim all the land you want, but if you don't have the military might to back up your claims, the rest of the world just laughs at you.
Posted by: RWV   2007-10-01 12:27  

#2  What does England need a navy for? It's not like it is an island. Except for the parts around the coast, I mean.
Posted by: SteveS   2007-10-01 07:54  

#1  France reportedly wants GERMANY to have a stronger role in EU defense - my EU-speak interpetation could be wrong, but IMO sounds like the Euros want EU Defense to be "specialized", wid major Euro nations having a Nation-specific NICHE FUNCTION/CONTRIBUTION, espec as per the protection of Euro-Socialism.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-01 00:56  

00:00