Articles

The great reality gap
Every time the government is questioned about the decline in the size of the fleet they trot out the same old line about “This government has invested in the biggest shipbuilding programme for the RN for many years" (Tony Blair, May 2007). The truth is that while the shipyards are now relatively busy, since 1997 when the current govt was elected there was a huge ‘gap’ in orders which has damaged our naval industries and allowed RN numbers to fall dramatically. Numbers have fallen from 98 ships in 1997 to 75 in 2007 and are set to fall further. Prior to the recent order for the 2 carriers, just one submarine HMS Audacious, and one small, lightly-armed Falkland Islands patrol ship HMS Clyde, have been ordered in the last 5 years. (She is not even govt property but rented from her builders!). The only area that has seen significant investment is amphibious ships (and they were already planned by the previous government). While they are important and appropriate for the current climate, in a ‘blue-water’, full-scale naval conflict they have little self-defence capability and would put further strain on the meagre number of escorts.

Currently building are just 6 destroyers, 4 submarines and now the 2 much-vaunted carriers. All of these vessels will eventually be very capable but are very expensive and should have been ordered at least 5 years earlier. Put together these orders do represent a big spend (but not particularly spectacular when spread over 10 years) In the case of the 4 Astute class Submarines, and to some extent the Type 45 destroyers, the huge price tags are due to delays in ordering, bad management, dubious procurement policies which seem to create chronic cost over-runs. Their unit cost is relatively higher because ordering larger numbers would achieve economies of scale. If there was a rolling programme of regular orders, a couple each year, industry could plan, retain manpower, skills and equipment, driving down costs and increasing efficiency.

Aircraft carriers alone don’t make a balanced fleet
In particular the treasury has used the order for the new carriers as a ‘stick to beat the RN’ in 2003 the head of the RN, Admiral West, accepted the withdrawal of a further 5 escorts in return for the gaurantee that the carriers would be ordered. (the RN then  endured another 4 years of prevarication before the final order was placed in 2007). Any complaint from the RN about the funding squeeze and further cuts can now be met with the attitude “You’re going to get the carriers so count yourselves lucky”. With the carriers now building they will doubtless be used as an excuse for more economies. The PR line will be “how can you say we’re cutting the fleet when we’re building 2 big carriers?” The carriers need to be part need a balanced fleet – with escorts, submarines, mine hunters and auxiliaries if they are to be used properly. As it stands when the carriers go to sea around 2014 there will be about 17 frigates and destroyers left to escort them. There is also the big issue concerning the numbers and quality of manpower which could decline in the meantime, so the RN will struggle to find enough experienced men (and pilots) to take the carriers to sea and fight them effectively. (For more about the this see the article The new aicraft carriers - blessing or curse?)

Quality does not make up for lack of quantity
The government is also always extolling much improved capabilities of the new ships. While this is true, the 6 Type 45s are replacing what was originally a 14-ship class! The government claims that because of their increased capability over previous ships they can justify ordering less ships (A frequent argument used by successive governments to cut the fleet). This is a flawed justification in many ways, most obviously because any potential enemy has also increased in capability since their previous generation of weaponry. Also one ship can only be at any one place at one time, however capable. In naval terms to keep one ship in the frontline really requires 2-3 ships – 1 in transit, 1 on station and 1 in maintenance or undergoing training. Add to this the unexpected e.g., mechanical breakdown, delays caused by weather, logistical problems or other potential unexpected factors that could cause unavailability, it is always better to have as many hulls as possible.

Lets look at what they have to say
Below is the Prime Minister’s office reply to the April 2007 petition to stop the destruction of the Royal Navy. (Government text in italics)

The Government has no plans to reduce the size of the Royal Navy, to withdraw warships from operational service earlier than scheduled, or to place warships in 'mothballs'.

The phrase ‘has no plans’ means little, it is not a long-term commitment rather a phrase that can be used up until they announce the exact opposite. Anyway the size of the navy has been steadily reduced since they took power in 1997 and will be further reduced as old ships are not replaced.

Far from making cuts, the Government is investing heavily in the construction of new warships for the Royal Navy. We are introducing the new and highly capable Type 45 Destroyers, the first two of which have already been launched. We are building the advanced and powerful Astute class nuclear attack submarines, of which three are now on order. Above all, we are buying two new aircraft carriers which will be the largest ships ever built for the Royal Navy and which will provide the UK with the most powerful carrier force outside the USA. The Navy has also recently taken delivery of new amphibious assault and support ships which are vastly more capable than the ships they replaced.

Yes we’ve heard it all before, there are new ships on order but in basic terms there are simply not enough on order to maintain even the vague numbers the government committed itself to (in the 1998 Strategic Defence review or even subsequently). Unless there is a rash of new orders now, the fleet will have been cut severely in the life of this government.

It is wrong to imply that the costs of operations in Iraq and elsewhere are being met at the expense of the Navy. The additional costs of these operations do not fall to the defence budget, but are met from the Treasury reserve.

Whichever pot the wars are funded from, overall spending on new equipment has fallen, this is simply to allow more money for the contingency fund that is paying for the shambolic war in Iraq and indefinite conflict in  Afghanistan. This is a simple game of semantics that allows the government to avoid accusations of outright lies.

Only one Royal Navy ship, HMS Invincible, is being held in a state of readiness from which it would require up to eighteen months to return to operational service. She is being held in this state of readiness prior to her final withdrawal from service, as scheduled, in 2010, by which time she will be over 30 years old. The Navy has no plans to place any other ships in such a state of readiness.

Again this is just a matter of MoD labelling. HMS Invincible is indeed rotting in Portsmouth dockyard until she is scrapped or as the MoD calls it “18 months readiness”. However many other ships (the MoD will not issue precise figures) are at “reduced readiness” , not quite mothballs, but it does mean, ships tied up for long periods, needing time to be re-activated. Without a full compliment of crew, even if in a good material state they would take some time to be ready for the frontline.

This is an unofficial site and does not have any endorsement by the Royal Navy
© copyright savetheroyalnavy.org 2008