Britse marine wordt een veredelde kustwacht

quote:

Navy to cut its fleet by half

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:03am GMT 05/01/2007

# In pictures: Farewell to fleet
# Audio: A change in naval strategy

Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure.
Men on HMS Invincible
Sailors standing on the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, which may never go to sea again

Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.

The Government has admitted that 13 unnamed warships are in a state of reduced readiness, putting them around 18 months away from active service. Today The Daily Telegraph can name a further six destroyers and frigates that are being proposed for cuts.

A need to cut the defence budget by £250 million this year to meet spending requirements has forced ministers to look at drastic measures.

MoD sources have admitted it is possible that the Royal Navy will discontinue one of its major commitments around the world at a time when Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has said more ships are needed to protect the high seas against terrorism and piracy.


News of further cuts to what was once the world's most formidable fleet comes as critics say failings across the Services are becoming increasingly apparent.

More details are emerging of the near-squalor that soldiers are forced to tolerate in barracks when they return from six months of dangerous overseas operations.

Questions have also been raised about the poor pay for troops and equipment failures which continue to dog operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The six warships to be mothballed are the Type 22 frigates Cumberland, Chatham, Cornwall and Campbeltown and two Type 42 destroyers Southampton and Exeter.

It is likely that they will eventually be sold or scrapped. There are also fears in the Admiralty that two new aircraft carriers, promised in 1998, might never be built.

Meanwhile the French navy, which will be far superior to the Royal Navy after the cuts, will announce before the April presidential elections that a new carrier will be built.

Two of eight advanced air defence Type 45 destroyers on the Navy's order books will not be bought, defence sources said. The order is already six months behind schedule and £157 million over budget.

A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us."

Defence sources said it would be unlikely that the Navy could now launch an armada of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands in 1982.

Steve Bush, editor of the monthly magazine Warship World, said the MoD was bankrupt following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"After 10 years of Labour government, the Royal Navy is on its knees without immediate and proper funding. I cannot see how it can recover —especially if Mr Brown becomes the next prime minister," he said.

There are already reports that ships on operations are ignoring faults to weapons systems in order to save money but will spend cash if it is a health and safety issue.

The Navy is expected to lose one of its three carriers, Invincible, which has been laid up in Portsmouth. One of the three major ports is also under threat of closure. It is believed that the historic Navy headquarters of Portsmouth is most vulnerable.

Two unnamed mine counter-measure vessels and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers, Brambleleaf and Oakleaf, are also under threat.

Adam Ingram, the defence minister, admitted in a Parliamentary answer last month that 13 ships were at sea with 18 in port at 48 hours notice to deploy. The decision to tie up another six frigates will mean the Navy has just 25 warships left. This would mean giving up a major commitment such as the anti-drugs and hurricane support role in the Caribbean.

To protect Britain from attack today, the country has the frigates Monmouth and Montrose available with the carrier Ark Royal about to re-enter service after a lengthy refit.

The MoD said yesterday that it had no plans to cut the destroyer and frigate fleet but it "routinely reviewed" defence capabilities "to ensure resources are directed where our front line Armed Forces need them most".

A spokesman said: "We are some way from any decisions and just because a proposal is looked at does not mean that it will be implemented"

A final decision on the cuts is expected next month.

quote:

From Royal Navy to coastal defence force

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 05/01/2007

Comment on this story Read comments

Our status in the world, as well as the security of these islands, depends chiefly on sea power. For the better part of 500 years, England and then Britain inflicted crushing defeats on larger, wealthier and more populous nations because it controlled the main. For much of that period, indeed, foreign vessels had to dip their colours when passing our ships, in acknowledgement of our sovereignty of the seas.

That chapter is to be closed. Of our 44 warships, at least 13, and possibly as many as 19, are to be taken out of active service. At present, we have a Navy with global reach. Our ships are present in the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the South Atlantic and the Gulf, as well as closer to home. The Government's scheme would reduce the Fleet to little more than a coastal defence role. How have we come to this pass?
[b]
There are three principal reasons. First, and most obviously, lack of money. The Government is a great believer in interventions overseas: Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq. Nothing wrong with that, but such deployments are expensive. As we remarked in October, if you want to practise gunboat diplomacy, it helps to have some gunboats. All the Armed Services, not just the Royal Navy, are overstretched.


Second, these reduced funds are often spent unwisely. As we have pointed out many times, the outstanding example of such misallocation is the £20 billion so far gobbled up by the otiose Euro-fighter. When you add a similar sum for the Trident replacement, you have consumed most of the budget. Yet neither project is much use against our current enemies. Our foes these days tend to be distant and sparse: teenage African militias, Ba'athist insurgents, Taliban bombers. Yet we are fighting them with alliances, systems and matériel designed to defend West Germany from a massed attack by Soviet T72s.

Which brings us to the third problem: the Euro-centric nature of our defence. During the second half of the 20th century, Britain's strategic thinking was focused, unusually, on the defence of western Europe.

The end of the Cold War should have released Britain to pursue its more usual vocation as an island nation with interests in every continent. But, as so often, our top brass is gearing up for the last war.

Instead of tailoring our procurement and alliances to suit our needs, we took what we happened already to have — Nato — and pressed it into roles for which it was not designed. The truth is that, as our horizons widen, the Royal Navy should be assuming a pre-eminence it has not enjoyed for 50 years.

We should be building more ships than ever, including unmanned vessels. Instead, we choose to engage in the madness of mothballing the few we have left.[/b]

quote:

Taking into account today's cuts, the Royal Navy is smaller than that of India, Japan and South Korea in total vessels. Apart from Britain's uncertain carrier force, the Navy is more comparable with that of North Korea, Indonesia, Turkey or Spain's current Armada.

But because other countries have been equally frugal with their naval budgets, Britain retains a maritime force larger than all her Nato allies with the exception of America and France.

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 januari 2007 13:19 schreef BobRooney het volgende:
The Dutch have a better navy than us...

whehehe