David Axe reports:
Under current plans, the Royal Navy circa 2020 will be a very strange force. There will be just six high-end warships to protect two 65,000-ton super-carriers, plus a mixed flotilla of old Type 23s and FSCs numbering just over a dozen. Itll be a top-heavy force with too few destroyers to escort the carriers into a shooting war, and too few frigates to perform day-to-day patrolling during peacetime. Its a fleet optimized for nothing.
For the past few decades, Her Majesty’s Armed Forces have steered away from the preservation of empire and colonies, instead configuring themselves in such a way that they can provide a solid bulwark to the US Armed Forces, while operating independently in a single theater, Falklands style scenario.
But, the backbone of any British strategy –from the pre-Victorian age all the way up until the Labour Party victory in the mid 1990s– has always been a powerful Royal Navy. The fleet’s demise over the past several years has been one of the great tragedies in recent memory. There was a time when the Union Jack protected every major sea lane and trade route on the globe — today the British can barely protect their own coastline. That’s a terrible fall for what was once a mighty sea-faring empire.
What’s troubling about this report, to me at least, is that the Brits are shaping their fleet in such a way that it will be largely reliant on American protection. Instead of existing as a powerful, independent ally that can operate jointly or independently with its US counterpart, the Royal Navy is becoming a welfare case — where supporting it with anti-sub and anti-air protection becomes more of a drain on our own resources than a benefit.
Watching the British lose confidence in themselves, the oft-lamented “Suez Syndrome,” is terrible. But, as much as it pains me to say so, perhaps it’s time we look for new, stronger allies for our special defense relationship — perhaps in the Aussies or Japanese.
–John Noonan
HT - Goldfarb
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
Behemoth flotillas are becomming more and more irrelevant in today’s environment. Air supremacy coupled with long-range supersonic anti-shipping missiles, asymetric littoral combat, and sub-launched supersonic anti-shipping missiles. eek!
Face it Britain is not so much of an expeditionary/colonial force any more. What do they need a flotailla to protect against? France? Spain? Germany? The Gulf States?
Britain cannot afford the military it has – would you prefer they cut boots on the ground? Strike aircraft?
This harkens back to the days of gunboats and monitors. The destroyers are not there for the carriers. They are there to show the flag.
Britain cant afford a military because the ppl who have now assumed power in this country have been at power there for over 20yrs. It’s economy is sufficated under the lazy shiftless wealfare babies and the damn pakistaines you know the same ones fighting in afphganistan right now against there own countrymen.
That is our future a weak apathetic public willing to bow to there “betters”.
The sad thing is that great britain has finaly fallen. In 20yrs or so there will probbly be more muslims than british. If we survive this administration and are still here i feel sad we may one day have to consider britainia a threat again…AND IM SCOTS-IRSIH!
The japanese have the potential of being great allies but theyve been force fed Pacifism for so long and made so damn confused hell there government still doesnt want to talk about the attrocities commited durring WW2. But they have the ability intellegence and if we help em the strength to become maybe our best partner.
As for ausstralia…a great allie…aat the moment.in 10 or 20 yrs? Some how the muslims have made all the western powers feel sorry for them and claim racism if they dont. Thats how the aussies will bellout from iraq and let men practice racism, sexism, preach genocide and that its ok to inslave those not of islam because you see to them…those not of islam dont count as human.
I think we also need to start boosting our allies in South america like columbia.
hi all, i’m a big supporter of the royal navy and am quite saddened by the way it has been treated the last few years, but there are some things in the post i’d take issue with. firstly post-ww2 / into cold war the royal navy shifted into primarily an ASW force to hunt and destroy soviet submarines and prevent them getting into the atlantic to attack US convoys (eg: sent to reinforce western europe if ussr were to invade etc). that was its main role and pretty much everything was designed with this in mind – as well as perhaps the best trained (if not equipped) mine-hunting fleet in the world. as the empire was lost, the need for expeditionary and patrol forces receded and budget pressures rose, to such a point in the early 1980s that we were about to scrap/sell our last amphibious assault ships, small carriers and disband the marines – then the falklands war happened and many say ‘saved’ the navy. this led eventually to the SDR and the reinvention of the navy role as a primary expeditionary force, which would be centred on two large carriers, a helicopter / commando carrier, 2 main assault ships, 4 support assault ships and protected by (eventually new) frigates (20+), new type 45 destroyers (12) and new astute nuclear submarines (10). however due to labour taking us (rightly or wrongly) into two wars and yet effectively CUTTING the defence budget to ~2% GNP, this has all gone to pot and ship orders have been cut, delayed or sidelined, mainly to pay for land operations and urgently needed things like mraps etc. the SDR plan was solid and if followed would have left the royal navy as probably the second most powerful (around 4/5th largest) in the world. as it is if things (ie. money) are not improved soon, it’ll be too late.
as for being reliant on the us navy that isn’t strictly true – it just happens it is rare for us to be involved in any actual fighting these days without the USA and both sides seem to still have strong mutual respect. i suggest looking up some of the videos and reports from sierra leone a couple years back to see some pretty impressive royal navy led, british only operations. it may make more sense for the US navy as a global force to make more of its regional partners (eg: the uk in atlantic / europe, japan and australia in the pacific etc) with occasional multi-nation global exercises / missions (eg: anti-pirate, or gulf patrols etc)
hmmm, that turned into a bit of a mini-rant, apologies :-)
I wonder why flat-tops are needed; and why instead a shift to the amphib assault vessels is not out of the question? If I recall correctly, some of the American ones can embark Harriers whilst functioning to carry Marines as well; making it more relevant to an expeditionary capacity.
I suppose the RN could also adjust their SSN/SSBN compositions accordingly, or segue into smaller subs like the AIPs. If the subs aren’t crossing the oceans then it may be worthwhile to invest in smaller diesels for the next generation SSN. Don’t know if cutting SSBNs is appropriate, but it is also a possibility.
It’s not the Royal Navy anymore, it’s not Britain’s anymore.
It’s a bunch of shippy type things that sit as the ginger step child of an EU that intends to exercise economic might in it’s own self interest.
Why would you need any of it to actually work? Defense spending is just another welfare programme.
You know, like the F-22.
This is complete uninformed rubbish – yes the Royal Navy programme has been hit heavily (mostly as a result of not really playing in the wars we have been fighting recently) however if you actually look at the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures) the UK is still equal second in defence spending with Japan 6th and Australia 13th not even counting the IQ/AF UOR spending which has been running at several billion per year.
The UK still punches well above its weight in defense and is the only US ally who has made the slightest difference in IQ/AF.
For the racists below you might want to note that the Muslims represent 3% of the UK population so I don’t really see us being overrun soon.
You can’t have security and a welfare state. The UK has foolishly chosen the welfare state.
They should forget the CVs and build more Astute class SSNs and Typhoons.
Consider a stretched version to deliver the SAS. This and their few SLCMs are all the power projecting they will be able to do. The CVs are a political statement. “we once had a navy” nothing more
For the racists below you might want to note that the Muslims represent 3% of the UK population so I don’t really see us being overrun soon.
Posted by: TimH at February 27, 2009 02:44 PM
Hey buddy where did i mention race i mentioned pakistaines…..are alot of them not pakistaines?
And how do you know its 3% you cant even go to many of the places where they pretty much have muslim only streets. Even you churchmen fear to go some places. Face it your government ships in forenigners every year by the thousands. The British on the otherhand have a declining birthrate. Also pakistaines there will marry off there daughters (many who where pulled out of school so they dont get infected by evil western ideas like equality or get uppity to there men folk) these daughters are sold off to men in pakistain who marry them then move there families to britian. its all over europe.
What happened to our society why can a man not state his ideas without being labeled a racist.
newsflash my half brother is half black ive dated a girl darker then even him. i dont give a damn about race or color. I used to not give a damn about religion like most ppl. then i found out that some ppl in this world veiwed me as a animal my country as a whore to be rapped and killed. the world is full of ppl both evil and good of many religions. but it only takes one man now to kill hundreds even thousands so forgive me if i believe that a religion that has turned whole countries into slaves with chains not just of metal but of the mind must change or be fought off.
So you stay and not offend ppl if i offend someone say what did you mean by that THINK!! talk ask a question you label me a racist. Hell your more willing to talk to mass murderers than ppl who think different from you or offend you!
ill say it again i dont give a damn about race or religion. but if men of a religion decide i dont have the right to live as i wish if im not hurting ppl just because im off the wrong religion.then damn them and any who protect them.
The thing that those who follow islam have forgotten is that men of god do not lead but guide. If you want to see what happens when you forget that look to the inquisition,the taliban, AQ, iran, danget man.
so no im not a racist. i hold my veiws as my own ill listen to yours but dont try to shut me up because ive done nothing wrong.
———————————–
i have to agree why dont the brits just build vstol carriers like the marines have or maybe pocket carriers?
I do not think Australia could ever count as a heavy lifting US ally. We do punch well above our weight militarily and have a highly trained and highly capable defense force (our Army infantry training is rough equivalent to US marine rifleman for example). But our entire population is only around 20 million. The man power simply does not exist. Combine that with a governmental culture of keeping personnel out of danger (ie out of the fight in Iraq – witness our weak combat involvement under Liberal and subsequent withdrawal under Labor) and you could not be left with a great deal of confidence. Our SASR operators are some of the best getting around (and outstanding in IQ/AF as they are primarily trained and equipped for desert), which is fine for low intensity, but when you get back to heavy lifting, SOF’s can’t lift heavy. Finally Aus. defense policy has three main prongs:
U
S
A
Just another free nation living under the US defense budget. It seems to me you will not have a new truly close ally until one can be forged in high intensity war.
So to paraphrase TimH’s comment:
“Racism, Racism, Racism, so no im not a racist. i hold my veiws as my own ill listen to yours but dont try to shut me up because ive done nothing wrong.”
I’m british, living in a very multicultural inner city area, can honestly say that most asians around work alot harder and are much more trustworthy than many white British I’ve met.
Back onto topic, yes we have prioritised Welfare over Weapons in the UK. We’re happy for the most part to take care of our poor and ill at the expense of not being able to blow people up on the other side of the planet without having a few casualties.
I remember a fair number of years ago now, but still completely relevant, that a joint Nato naval exercise was held and scheduled to run for something like 10 days. it was called off after 3-4 days after a (one) SSN had “sunk” everything.
If you are facing competent subs, your surface fleet is pretty much history. If you aren’t facing subs then, the only navy you need is one optimized for the actual conflicts you are facing. In other words, these days – Litorial and power projection ashore.
A few people need to stop living in the past, or being in such an itching hurry to have a go at the Russians and Chinese – chill.
I remember a fair number of years ago now, but still completely relevant, that a joint Nato naval exercise was held and scheduled to run for something like 10 days. it was called off after 3-4 days after a (one) SSN had “sunk” everything.
If you are facing competent subs, your surface fleet is pretty much history. If you aren’t facing subs then, the only navy you need is one optimized for the actual conflicts you are facing. In other words, these days – Litorial and power projection ashore.
A few people need to stop living in the past, or being in such an itching hurry to have a go at the Russians and Chinese – chill.
Posted by: PeterB at February 27, 2009 07:04 PM
—————————————
seriously i thought that after korea when we learned not everything would be solved with nukes unlike we thought that ppl would say hey lets get a balanced fleet together capable of responding to a wide range of threats so were PREPARED.
Didnt the british have frigates alot like the lcs and such and didnt they get sunk by excet?
you dont know the future…be prepared for many eventualities. Id rather have that surface fleet of super ships and not need it than face an enemy on our shores. Subs arent super weapons uncapable of being sunk. there also be-jesus expensive. Like in a retarded way. Once ppl claimed battleships were unsinkable now? there aint a one on the oceans.(though i dont see how they fail in a shore support role.)
America isnt the only nation on earth capable of amazing feats of engineering. What if one day we have a mostly sub fleet and a small surface fleet of i suck at everything LCS. And someone developes a system that can see any shape in the water…the japanese suffered horribly for not having radar.
I dont think were going to find any stronger allies.
The UK is a good ally, and it will likely stay our best ally for the foreseeable future.
One of my favorite countries is Israel…simply because they do what needs to be done…and I like that.
If a terrorist organization attacks them they fight back. If people continue to cross their borders illegally and blow themselves up in a market, they build a big long wall to keep those people out. the point is…they dont just sit back ans take it. Its to bad that their such a small country, because I think they would be a good big ally…if only they had more then a sliver of land.
From my point of view, Christian calls it as he sees it; from an American perspective. That is not wrong or bad; its just a perspective – valuable, but open to discussion.
I’d like to raise the role of Canada as a maritime and military ally of the US (our frigates routinely network with and “manage” US battle groups, and have provided solid support w.r.t interdiction in relation to IQ embargoes. In addition we share a common, integrated defense of NA airspace through NORAD). As a partner “punching above its weight” in AF (a multi-mission combat brigade in-theatre since 2002, plus SOF, and with over 100 KIA brought home since the mission began), I think we deserve some acknowledgement.
Yeah, we passed on IQ, but the “perspective” from here was that the justification failed to meet the smell test. With a 25M population, and a small but capable all-volunteer force, we had to pick our battle, and AF seemed more suited to our capabilities and strengths.
I hope US can salvage a workable peace in IQ, but AF is going to unravel unless more forces are committed. Our gov’t is running out of patience and wants to end the mission by 2010 – unless more help is at hand.
God bless all of ours who go into harms way seeking to make this a better world; whatever the underlying politics. Bring them home safe and successful.
Perhaps her Majesty Can Send ALL Those Fag Haters
To Iran!
Free coffee for and donuts for all police officers around the world.
Canuck said:
“our frigates routinely network with and “manage” US battle groups”
Canadian naval ships “manage” US carrier battle groups do they? I don’t believe that at all. Canada’s inferiority complex leads to some immensely preposterous claims about their relationship with the US. The way you even worded it shows that either you, or the person who you are repeating, said that with the sole intent of boosting Canadian pride.
“But, as much as it pains me to say so, perhaps it’s time we look for new, stronger allies for our special defense relationship — perhaps in the Aussies or Japanese.”
Maybe it’s time to wake up and see that there’s no real opposition.
The British fleet would still be the third to fifth most powerful fleet in the world then, only two non-friendly fleets being in the top ten at all.
What should they optimize their fleet against? Non-existing enemies?
Europeans have no troubles with the PRC and Russia’s navy is and will be scattered and inferior to the united Western European navies and maritime aviation.
The British are in extremely difficult economic problems and need to focus their power on domestic problems, not on wasting resources on their fleet for no purpose.
- – - – -
By the way, maybe the Europeans should search a new ally, other than the USA?
The USN’s littoral combat capability sucks; no SSKs, no FACs, almost no mine-hunting capability, no combat worthy frigates.
No? An ally without a well-rounded naval force can still be a valuable ally? Surprise, surprise…
I really wouldn’t be too concerned over how the Royal Navy will look in 2020 because there won’t be a UK by then. But, at the rate we are going now there will not be a “United” States of America either.
hey man this is hope and change time if were not here in 2025 george bush’s fault..of course so is global warming, aids,hurrican katrina, pirates, ninjas, lazy ppl, and sun burns
look, the RN has nothing to do with being optimised to work with the US Navy – the problem we have is that we are right smack in the middle of a re-equipment process, where the surface fleet is midway through being adjusted.
We do NOT need help with air cover, the Type 45, despite being useles for most other things has a SAM system far and above superior to anything the US has, and thats a fact (good job it is, the amount it costs)
The old T23,22 and 42′s will be replaced soon enough by those ships you have as a picture… please, the world is not US centric.
I think the best way to show we aren’t working at needing you is the fact that for Iraq 2003, the USN gave us their communications suites so we could talk to you.
Anyway, the Aus Navy is way smaller than the RN and always will be as it has far less interests abroad. The Japanese also have little to no intrest beyond self defence.
Just you wait, it’ll take longer because of the amoutn being spent in Iraq and Afghan, but it’ll come around and you’ll be forced to eat your article i’m afraid.
Why does Britain need more naval power? Who are they supposed to be fighting?
It’s already one of the most powerful fleets in the world – disproportionate for a small country, and a huge waste of money.
Note that the description of the fleet above doesn’t include the important bit – the subs. Ignorant and under-researched.
Well I think thats a perfectly fair assessment of the Royal Navy. The liarbour government has bankrupted the country and we need a strong navy, so what better to do than get the Americans to protect us, that way we dont have to buy ships, afterall they are expensive and we could be wasting the money elsewhere.
I read some of the comments below, and I figure there are 1 or 2 ill informed people posting about what they don
is the RAN back from its holiday yet?
Who came out with this crap about the muslim population of the U.K. being 3% of the entire British population? If they checked their facts, they’d find it was actually only 2% compared to a staggering 3.5% in the good old U.S.A. So for all those “Brit-bashers” I think the Yanks have got a whole lot more to worry about, with all those muslims in their own backyard!
- disproportionate for a small country, and a huge waste of money.
…….you know great britain is an island nation right?…..
so island nations dont need navies……
diablotakahe,
Yeah, the RAN is back from their… holiday.
Let us never speak of it again.
Naw!!!. Britain with not give up the waves. There is still too much to control out there in the water especially when you are surrounded by water to depend on another country to protect yours???.I realize that the world is smaller because of communications,jet travel and such but the ocean will always be there !. And Britain will always be there on the water!.
Blame lies solely with the Labour party. No other government has been so successful at systematically destroying the Royal Navy (infrastructure and material-wise) as Gordon Brown (as a heavily influential chancellor and then PM).
It is sickening, but the damage has not only been done to the RN. Both the army and RAF are suffering, not to the horrendous extent of the RN, but still disgraceful.
And the worst thing is that i seriously doubt any future government will find the funds to revitalise the Armed forces (would take decades to do so thanks to Brown)
And the worst thing is that i seriously doubt any future government will find the funds to revitalise the Armed forces (would take decades to do so thanks to Brown)
Posted by: Ross at March 1, 2009 04:25 PM
hey if he cant get you to want to stay in the EU he can always just force you to threw other means
1> britain is in fact investing quite heavily in anti submarine defense (theyre choosing the wrong aircraft but they are doing it) as well as automated anti air naval capabilities
while i agree theyre going to be under represented in the sheer amount of ships they wont be the pushover you believe – and it wouldnt be the first time theyve been in a situation where theyve been low on numbers and still beat the crap out of the enemy
2> australias navy is a bigger joke than canadas and the japanese dont even have one – hell they dont even have a military, they have a homeland defense force – much like a coastguard with a few planes and apc’s.
so yeah – take your whining american ass to them and see if theyll support your illegal and immoral wars at the cost of lives and cash, good luck with that.
I do think it is interesting to hear the comments about the Royal Navy being optimized for work with the other Navies of the European Union. While this isn’t exactly a academic quote, this Wikipedia quote is of particular interest “Member states are responsible for their own territorial defense”. Europe doesn’t seem to like to play together, a pattern you could trace back to Roman times.
While it could be said that NATO would be willing to work together, at the rate the alliance has in recent years I wouldn’t count on it. For example those pulling out of Iraq; i.e. Spain.
Shocking! The RN is essentially going out of business, and the UK is counting on unreliable European allies to protect her shores. More likely, she is counting on the US to do so, which is a dicey thing to do given the budget cutbacks we are going through.
My goodness revere. Such language. If only the UK had Chuck Norris. He would roundhouse kick the other navies in the face.
My goodness revere. Such language. If only the UK had Chuck Norris. He would roundhouse kick the other navies in the face.
Posted by: WJS at March 2, 2009 01:02 PM
WJS gets best comment of the thread awared
Next up is the SAS in RIB’s protecting the coast!
Reading the TITLE and then reading the ARTICLE it sounds to me like a “SLAP IN THE FACE” to the U.S. Coast Guard…as if the word Coast Guard is a second hand navy…
I say “SHOOT THE MESSENGER” and then change the TITLE of the story…
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD since 1790
We could quite easily afford a splendidly equipped military if only the prats in power would stop cutting the defence budget (in real terms) and give us what was promised.
And as for what do we need a navy for, you do realise we still have dependant territory all over the world, and since we’re an island we have a duty to protect all the shipping that keeps the people fed.
The Navy is quite capable of defeating anyone we can foreseeably see Britain being involved in some sort of conflict with in the near future. Just because it isn’t as good as the US Navy doesn’t mean it sucks! It is one of only three navies in the world with expeditionary capability (the other two being France and America) and it is one of very few with aircraft carriers. The Type 23s are not old, the last one was only finished in 2001 (HMS Argyll), hardly old. Britain does not rely on the Americans, it just so happens that most of the wars we go to these days the Americans go to too. We can still fight on our own if needed though, just look at Sierra Leone as a recent example. Oh, and for those who don’t understand the Navy, the frigates and destroyers are there to protect the aircraft carriers and amphibious assualt ships from enemy threats and in peacetime show the flag. They aren’t there to purely provide highly expensive and sophisticated yaughts promoting Britain abroad, they are, believe it or not, warships too. The problem here is that people are giving the definition of a good navy as: must be on similar lines to US Navy. This is a load of tosh, the Royal Navy is capable of defeating most countries, just not every country. The countries it can’t beat, lets be honest, it doesn’t need to.
i know i am coming in late on this, but i would just like to say that although our navy is smaller than it should be, it is still large enough to do what we need it to.
some stats
current commissioned ships in Royal Navy approx 90
current commissioned ships in US Navy approx 245
(america does have another 150 odd non commissioned support vessels)
Now take a minute, jump on google maps and compare the size of america to Great Britain
you will note America is approx 10 times larger, but the US navy is only 3 times bigger in combat vessells and 5 times bigger in total vessell numbers.
If we do have a Navy that is low in numbers, then this surely means that America is desparately short!?!
As we all know this is not the case for America, surely it can not be the same for the UK.
although our Navy has decreased in size, it has increased in leathality.
We could do with some major investment, some moves have been made in this direction already (new carriers being built etc etc)
But i think the one thing you can not over look, is our history of sea warfare.
We have some of, if not the best tactical planners in the Royal Navy.
Please remember we had a Navy before America was discovered.
In fact i believe im right when i say we had even developed our Marine core before Americas was discovered!!!