Navy forced to curb role as Gordon Brown imposes cuts.Navy faces 20pc cut in MoD spending

The public's comments to The Times article are uniformly scathing.
=What if there was another Falklands now?
=15 frigates / destroyers will not protect a single new carrier that 
is to be built, the logic of Labour!
=This decision is an utter disgrace.
=This is just the beginning of the "scorched earth" policy that our 
deluded Gordon is carrying out to destroy the country in advance of 
his electoral annihilation.
=The "only serious threat to Britain" is this incompetent Government,
  - and shoals more

But perhaps the most shaming aspect is that these cuts are all in 
total defiance of the advice given to it by its own Strategic Defence 
Review.

The man must go and soon!

=========

This is the way this disastrous government dithers along.  It doesn't 
announce the 'writing down' of the Royal Navy to  a token force in a 
proper announcement but lets it slither out in Departmental accounts.

So we are to have two new aircraft carriers [much of the building in 
Gordon Brown's constituency!] but these carriers need aircraft - not 
in the budget - and they need frigates and destroyers to defend such 
valuable assets.  So what do they do? - they propose to cut the real 
backbone of the navy, the destroyers, frigates and attack 
submarines.  And they do this when a resurgent Russia is on the march 
and she has a deep water fleet with carriers and all the weaponry.

The public's comments to The Times article are uniformly scathing.
=What if there was another Falklands now?
=15 frigates / destroyers will not protect a single new carrier that 
is to be built, the logic of Labour!
=This decision is an utter disgrace.
=This is just the beginning of the "scorched earth" policy that our 
deluded Gordon is carrying out to destroy the country in advance of 
his electoral annihilation.
=The "only serious threat to Britain" is this incompetent Government,
  - and shoals more

But perhaps the most shaming aspect is that these cuts are all in 
total defiance of the advice given to it by its own Strategic Defence 
Review.

The man must go and soon!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
===========================
SUNDAY TIMES   31.8.08
Navy forced to curb role as Gordon Brown imposes cuts
Michael Smith

The government is planning further big cuts to the Royal Navy after 
deciding that terrorism is the only serious threat to Britain. [How 
does that match up with Russia, with a major deep water fleet and 
atomic weapons ?]  Annual accounts from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) 
show that it is to cut funding for new ships and equipment by more 
than 20%, from about £1.8 billion a year to a maximum of £1.4 billion.

The cuts come as the MoD tries to fill a £2 billion shortfall in its 
budget over the next three years. Overspending has left funding even 
for this year uncertain. They will force the navy to shrink its 
commitments around the globe, further limiting Britain's ability to 
play a role in world events at a time when the perceived threat from 
both Russia and China is increasing.

The Royal Navy has not sent any ships to join a Nato force in the 
Black Sea since the Georgia crisis began, in contrast to poorer 
countries such as Poland and Spain.

Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence spokesman, said the situation in 
the Caucasus and the navy's inability to send any ships to the Black 
Sea "exposes the complete folly of the government's approach to the 
navy". He added: "The procurement budget is shot to pieces and there 
is simply no money in it to buy the ships that the navy needs."

Russia's attack on Georgia has also alarmed new members of Nato and 
the European Union such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all of 
which have large Russian minorities. Other member countries would be 
required to come to their defence in the event of an attack.

The navy has secured its most important project - two giant aircraft 
carriers to replace three smaller ones. But the destroyer fleet will 
be cut from nine to six - half the number deemed necessary by the 
1998 Strategic Defence Review.

Attack submarines will be reduced from 11 to seven and many of 
Britain's 17 frigates will go. When Labour came to power the fleet 
had 35 destroyers and frigates. The defence review said it needed 32. 
There are now only 26 - and that figure could drop to as low as 15. 
The MoD cannot say how many frigates it will buy but the government 
has already indicated that large numbers are not needed.

Tony Blair had defended cuts to the navy before he left office, 
saying the threat from terrorism meant "the era . . . requiring large 
numbers of frigates is over". This view was backed by the National 
Security Strategy published by Gordon Brown in March, which said 
there was no longer a threat to Britain from any leading state.

The Cabinet Office said there were no plans to change that assessment 
as a result of Russia's attack on Georgia, although it could not rule 
out doing so in the future.

The reduced naval spending is shown deep inside the MoD's annual 
report and accounts for 2007-8, released last month. It says £14 
billion will be spent on new ships and naval equipment over the next 
10-15 years. That equates to a maximum of £1.4 billion a year and a 
minimum of £930m, compared with a figure of £1.8 billion less than 
three years ago.

The MoD said the figure was enough to cover all its plans for new 
ships, but "costs are kept under constant review".
====================
TELEGRAPH   1.9.08
(NOT TRACED ONLINE! - so retyped E&OE)
Navy faces 20pc cut in MoD spending
By David Thomas

The Royal Navy is facing a 20 per cent budget cut as ministers 
increasingly direct spending to counter-terrorism projects.

Annual accounts from the Ministry of Defence reveal that funding 
faces being cut from £18bn to £14bn as the government switches the 
Armed Forces focus over the next 10-15 years and tries to cover a 
£2bn budget shortfall [eh? with a £4bn cut? -cs]

The MoD argues that large numbers of ships are less important in the 
21st century because a war against another industrialised country is 
unlikely.  [Russia?]

Instead the government plans to switch priority to building forces to 
combat terrorist groups, which it deems the only credible threat to 
Britain's security.

The cut means that the amount available annually for new ships will 
fall from a planned maximum of £1.8 bn to £1.4 bn and a minimum of 
£930 million.

The Conservatives have criticised the move, saying it undermines 
British capabilities at a time when Russia is flexing its muscles and 
seeking to regain its position as a top military power.

A NATO force was sent to the Black Sea to monitor the recent conflict 
between Russia and Georgia, and while countries like Poland and Spain 
sent ships, there was no Royal Navy presence.

Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence spokesman, called the situation 
"hugely embarrassing" for Britain's international reputation .

"Vladimir Putin is seeking to increase Russia's authority and all we 
have got with which to confront him are the words of [the Foreign 
Secretary] David Miliband" , he said.

"If your opponent knows you cannot back up your words you have a weak 
position and that is the position we find ourselves in  now."

The reduced level of spending is revealed in the MoD's annual report 
and accounts for 2007/08.

When Labour came to power in 1997, the Royal Navy's surface fleet 
comprised 35 destroyers and frigates.

The Strategic Defence Review in 1998 said that the fleet should go no 
smaller than 32.  There are now just 26 surface ships, excluding 
aircraft carriers.  Projects that will go ahead include two new 
carriers, Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, which will replace the 
current 3 smaller vessels.

The destroyer fleet will be cut by a third from nine to just six 
ships - half the number recommended by the Review.  The number of 
attack submarines will be reduced from nine to four.  The number of 
frigates could be cut from  17 to 11.

A spokesman for the MoD defended its budget plans saying the figure 
of £14 bn was only "approximate".

"Overall we plan to invest approximately £14 billion in the Royal 
Navy and the maritime industry over the next 10 to 15 years", he said.

[This last comment is a masterpiece of evasion and vagueness.  The 
crucial point is that the balance of the navy will not be workable 
and when ships in dock for regular overhaul are deducted the seagoing 
fleet will not be viable as a proper maritime defence arm -cs]