October 15, 2006
SOMEWHERE NELSON WEEPS:
Navy 'too weak' for big role in Korea blockade (Thomas Harding, Damien McElroy in Washington and Richard Spencer in Beijing, 16/10/2006, Daily Telegraph)
[S]enior Royal Navy officers last night cast serious doubt over Britain's ability to make a significant naval contribution to the proposed UN force, claiming that drastic cuts in government spending on the navy over the past decade had severely reduced their ability to participate in major foreign operations."I am staggered that the Government is trying to make this commitment when it knows what our Armed Forces are going through," a senior Royal Navy officer last night told The Daily Telegraph.
"But it knows that to keep our presence on the Security Council Britain needs to demonstrate what we can do."
Defence experts predicted that the most the Royal Navy could contribute was a single frigate, a Royal Fleet auxiliary support vessel and a Trafalgar class hunter killer submarine.
But senior navy officers expressed deep concern about their ability to defend their ships against a hostile missile or fighter threat after a decision was enforced six months ago to scrap the Sea Harrier fighter.
As a result of government cutbacks any British ships deployed to the South China Sea to enforce the UN resolution would depend on the American or French navies to provide "beyond visual range" air defence with their aircraft carriers.
At this stage a British navy is pretty pointless as a strategic matter, but it's got to hurt what's left of their pride. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 15, 2006 11:03 PM
Sea power is the sole province of the world government, which some people still think is not an "empire."
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 16, 2006 7:52 AMBrittania rules the waves no more; how sad.
Posted by: Dave W at October 16, 2006 10:10 AMThe British have very good submarines, but unless they are going to launch a few torpedoes, no one will even know that they are there.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 16, 2006 11:20 AMJim, can't submarines launch missiles as well?
Posted by: erp at October 16, 2006 12:11 PMSubmarines are valuable as one component of a balanced naval force. That's why the United States has so many of them.
Relying on submarines alone because you are too weak to sustain surface forces is the mark of a loser who has abandoned the seas to the adversary. Think Germany in World War Two.
As to what kind of "carriers" countries outside the world government possess, we must keep in mind that these are VSTOL/helicopter ships, inferior in tonnage to the American amphibian assault ships used to carry Marine Expeditionary units. They are close to one-third the displacement of a real aircraft carrier.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 16, 2006 10:45 PMThis article claims Kitty Hawk is a nuclear carrier. Wonder what else they got wrong.