Good news: The Royal Navy is crap
posted at 4:10 pm on December 6, 2007 by Bryan
As if that Iran business back in March didn’t provide more than a whiff of this.
Liam Fox, the shadow Tory defence secretary, said: “We have come all the way from Lord Nelson to a part-time defence secretary, with the consequence that the Royal Navy now finds itself in the most degenerated state in which it has ever been. Labour has done what none of this countries’ enemies have been able to do: bring the Navy to its knees.”
This puts the NIE release into some perspective, I guess. No enemy seriously doubts whether the US could bring a great deal of force to bear on any target in the world if we absolutely have to, and they have no reason to think that they’ll ever see us coming until we’re right on top of them. The intel that got us to the brink might lead us to the wrong target, but at least we could get there and do some damage. The Royal Navy, not so much.
And that puts this story into some disturbing perspective.
Exit question-o-rama: Did you now that in the UK, defense secretary is a part-time job? Would you rather your petrodollars go to Saudi sheiks, Hugo Chavez or Vlad Putin? If Britain’s Royal Navy is as bad as all this, do we have any real militarily strong allies left?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Exit question-o-rama:
1. No.
2. None of the above. Would prefer Alaska.
3. America Alone.
Griz on December 6, 2007 at 4:15 PM
My fiance and I went to Hawaii last year with her folks. Her mom is a nurse, and when she saw a statue of Capt. Cook, RN, she (seriously) thought it meant he was a Registered Nurse. We thought it was pretty funny at the time; not so much now in this light.
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Do you want the U.S Navy (and Army and Air Force and Marines) to follow the same path? Then vote for a president from the party of the Democrats.
rplat on December 6, 2007 at 4:18 PM
I remember the Falklands with them using the QE2 to move troops.
They need to keep all their ships handy to bail out when the UK jihad begins.
Hening on December 6, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Hey, if that’s the quality of their Navy, let’em go for it. I just hope our guys aren’t kept too busy rescuing them.
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 4:20 PM
1. No
2. If I HAD to choose, Putin.
3. We have no traditional strong allies left. We will have to cultivate some. We need countries like India BAD. Fantastic strategic location, 1 billion people, they also have issues with China, they are a Hindu state. Too bad they are a bunch of commies for the most part. I dunno, maybe I’ll go with Griz.
RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 4:21 PM
The Russian navy will have so many sailors just ship in the Med. Think about it, some poor Russian kid stops at some of those ports and he will never want to leave.
Win Win Win on December 6, 2007 at 4:24 PM
I don’t know who they would be.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Britain decided in the 60s, like all of Europe, to spend their money on their damn entitlement programs and have big bad America provide defense for the entire continent. Then of course to tell America to sod off anytime they actually have to use their ability. Two issues – their damn government doesn’t want to spend money on their military because they’re going bankrupt from entitlements and their own populace doesn’t care about the Royal Navy’s history since I doubt learning about the Royal Navy’s history is even allowed any more since its not politically correct for Europeans to be ‘good’ without kowtowing to third world.
Btw the ONLY ‘militarily strong’ allies the US has is ISRAEL, that’s it. Please feel free to be sickened, I know i am.
Defector01 on December 6, 2007 at 4:31 PM
The only ones I can think of are Japan and the Aussies. Taiwan, perhaps.
And they don’t have that much moxie. It’s pretty much the US, Alone, against the world. That’s the bright side–none of our enemies are that strong militarily (yet). China soon, though.
We are the big dog in a room full of poodles. Which isn’t the worst place to be, honestly.
Vanceone on December 6, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Poland has a lot of fiesty folks but no huge military capability.
Japan is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States militarily speaking.
France has good technology but usually don’t align politically.
Germany = Japan.
Israel has enough problems without getting into an offensive war.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Japan has no real military, most they could do is provide some support/logistics
Australia’s military is strong but can’t move far beyond their area
Germany has nothing
France is better but doesn’t have much
Italians are weak
Poland is not providing much
the only ‘allies’ that could provide real military support I think are Turkey (which the democrats tried to break from us) and India.
Defector01 on December 6, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Defector01 on December 6, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Thanks. Those are my sentiments also. The europeans abandoned their own military because the big bad Americans would protect them. I used to be proud of my european heritage, but not anymore. I don’t bring it up anymore.
cjs1943 on December 6, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Laugh away guys but this really is our problem too. Britain is our strongest and most reliable ally in NATO and in the GWOT.
If the UK goes the way of the rest of Europe and foregoes a strong military (with the assumption that the US will protect them) than things will get really bad as the Chinese continues to develop a blue water Navy.
highhopes on December 6, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Israel
Didnt they just raid a neighboring country stealthily, steal nuclear material, then follow it up with a lightning air raid and destroy the bomb factory? No losses, damn that is good. In fact the nation they did it to was so embarrased by the incident, they are trying their best to cover it up literally and figuratively.
Me, I would make sure we stay very best friends with Israel, they could very well end up being the world’s savior.
paulsur on December 6, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Britain has been a paper tiger for a while. Their military has not been impressive recently – even in a support role. I guess we should look to Spain and expect revenge for 1588. The Armada will rise again. Too bad that Britain doesn’t have a Lord Nelson anymore. My bet is that those of Nelson’s ilk moved to the USA. . . My grandmother was a Nelson.
ThackerAgency on December 6, 2007 at 4:41 PM
1. No, and what does the bloke do with the rest of his time?
2. Drill more offshore oil from our coasts, help Brazil with their new find, build more refineries already, add in a bit of ANWR, cut down on the Saudi oil, and then tell Chavez to go [multiple expletives deleted].
3. Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, because they know what it’s like to be un-free, and thus don’t take their freedom for granted like so many of the Euro-weasels. Trouble is, none of them are very strong, and only Poland has access to the sea.
Bigfoot on December 6, 2007 at 4:42 PM
We’ll do it ourselves with drones. Imagine thousands upon thousands of predator style drones flown by a crack contingent of 13 year olds using wii controllers and fueled by cheetos and mountain dew. Pff, they’ll fly a missle right up Achmadinnerjacket’s backside before bed time. Heck, if we make it a new event in the X-Games, we can conquer the world…. Muwhahahha!!
trubble on December 6, 2007 at 4:43 PM
We need to repeal the limiting legislation and get serious about arming Taiwan with the latest technology. Likewise, we should do more to encourage changes to and arming of Japan. I also agree with above poster that mentions India. We really need to cultivate something there, and one way to do that is to have them buy F-18s and F-35s instead of MiGs and Su-35s.
Nessuno on December 6, 2007 at 4:48 PM
This is a table of military expenditures by country from the 2006 CIA World Factbook.
This doesn’t necessarily denote capabilities, but it’s a useful comparison.
By the way, note Japan’s listing.
CP on December 6, 2007 at 4:49 PM
You are for or against a Democrat for President?
Swinehound on December 6, 2007 at 4:50 PM
“Thank God I have done my duty”–Lord Nelson
Too bad no one else is doing it in 2007.
elpresidente on December 6, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Didn’t I read somewhere that the nickname for UK troops in Iraq was The Borrowers because they kept on asking for handouts.
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 6, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Considering what happened a mere two years ago…
…I’m SHOCKED! SHOCKED!!
Not.
tree hugging sister on December 6, 2007 at 5:19 PM
It’s all for the best since the Muslims are assuming control of Britain. Do we want them to have a world class navy?
ronsfi on December 6, 2007 at 5:20 PM
So you could take the entire British Navy to an NFL game, and they wouldn’t even fill the stadium.
Yikes.
Hawkins1701 on December 6, 2007 at 5:21 PM
It’s less useful than you might think because of differences in purchasing power parity (PPP). I’ll assume everyone here knows what that is. (If you don’t, educate yourself.) If you consider PPP, our allies are doing even worse off in their expenditures than our enemies on the linked list.
Nessuno on December 6, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Yes; according to that list, Canada spends slightly morethan Israel, but Israel has a far stronger military than Canada overall (no offence to fellow Canucks, and my Naval friend in BC…)
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 5:26 PM
This is horrible. My mother is British and half of my family resides there. I am very proud of my Anglo-American heritage, but I am afraid if the UK keeps on tis current path my Anglo history will be just that…history. The current makeup of that nation is changing and any sense of national pride and loyalty is gone among the masses.
With what’s left of my British family slowly immigrating either to here or Canada, I fear my family’s blood link to the once great island nation will be gone in the next two generations.
bentman78 on December 6, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Don’t write off the UK just yet. Remember, our Army got its nose bloodied in the first days of WWII. The peace between WWI and WWII had left us complacent and far below standards. Our tank corps was a laughingstock. Patton and other leaders kicked some asses and made a race out of it. Only after that did the Brits treat us like bipeds.
What happened to the Royal Navy happens when people forget that a weak military is an invitation to war. And another poster here said that societies that invest into entitlement programs do so at their own peril. Correctamundo!
If the Brits are smart enough–and I think they are–this nonsense will come to a close. Not, however, if the lefties are left to decide.
Time will tell.
thejackal on December 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Lord… where to begin?
I guess when you don’t know your department well enough to counter criticism, then you shouldn’t be surprised to learn it has been going down the crapper for a generation…
It is so sad to behold… I have served with Brits (Army and AF, not RN) many times over the years. I have always found them to be dedicated, devoted troops. Often they were “resource challenged” – sometimes they needed to “borrow” lots of stuff…. But they always repaid with their hard work… and their usually ready supply of various alcoholic beverages… Always welcome in those parts of the world where Uncle Sam has said “NO”….
See Strategy Page’s Politically Correct Nelson at Trafalgar While this is humor… The PC shackles are killing the RN just as the ‘slow bleed’ lack of funding…
darkpixel on December 6, 2007 at 6:02 PM
And that was OK back in the day of long wars, and a population (and media) that would put up with high casulaties. For centuries the Brits did not care who won the first battle – they only cared who won the last battle. However the speed of warfare in this day in age leads to the “You go to war with the army you have”… there is no time to spool up, train, equip, indoctrinate, deploy, employ and win with a force that does NOT exist on day one of hostilities.
darkpixel on December 6, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Heh! The brits were one (or two) Exocet missles away from losing the Falklands back in the 80s.
burnitup on December 6, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Why does Britain or- for that matter any NATO country need a Navy.. or Airforce or heck any military at all?
It obvious who does the laundry and takes out the trash on this rock.
FINE! WE’LL DO IT… go back to watching the tele.
amend2 on December 6, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Do we have real militarily strong allies left?
Japan, South Korea, and Isreal.
The United States should remove our troups from western Europe.
Rode Werk on December 6, 2007 at 6:23 PM
1. No. But judging by the long peace march Britain have been engaged in for the past decades, this should be no surprise.
2. Saudi sheiks and Vlad Putin. First, neutralize the threat next door before you train your focus on threats overseas.
3. America never had any strong allies. The US-European alliance was based entirely on Europe’s fear that the Soviet Union will either incorporate or annihilate them from the face of this earth. In Europe’s case, that was an alliance based solely on self-preservation. Now that they believe the Soviet Union is no longer a threat, they feel free to revert back to their natural hate America stance.
European indulgence of the jihadists is not because they are such peace loving and caring people. It’s because, like the jihadists, most Europeans harbor the same goal. The total destruction of the United States of America.
RMR on December 6, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Now that’s a heck of an achievement for the Russian navy, I can only guess that they’ve perfected some sort of Philadelphia Experiment to be able to shift time to visit the same port in multiple countries.
Jason Coleman on December 6, 2007 at 6:42 PM
According to my English friends that’s sadly true,they’re taught that the Empire was the worst thing in their history,if they learn about it at all.
Frantic Freddie on December 6, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Mark Steyn knows what he’s writing about.
Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Israel, Australia, Japan, and Taiwan are the ones we should be working with. Australia and Israel have been there, done that, and have the t-shirts. Taiwan and Japan need to be brought up to speed rapidly.
It pains me not to include New Zealand in that list because of the rich history of the ANZACs. The Kiwi Navy has around four ships.
I would like to go further by proposing that the U.S. abandon the One China policy and replace it with a One China and One Taiwan policy.
Honestly, I haven’t kept up with India’s military. I know their flattops are old Royal Navy carriers. I think their destroyers and cruisers are built with Soviet technology. Their Air Force is all Soviet equipment. Army, I don’t have a clue.
Mooseman on December 6, 2007 at 8:27 PM
this sweater is out of … yarn
amend2 on December 6, 2007 at 8:45 PM
In his 1958 book, Parkinson’s Law, Cyril Northcote Parkinson noted the following;
1. Work expands to absorb all time available.
2. Bureaucracies expand to absorb all funding available.
3. Bureaucrats seek to multiply subordinates, not competitors.
As an example of the rot inherent in bureaucracies, Parkinson (a former Major in the Royal Army) pointed out that at the end of World War Two, the Royal Navy had 1200+ warships of all sizes (ranging from patrol boats to fleet aircraft carriers and battleships), over a half-million men under arms (he included Fleet Air Arm and Royal Marines, plus auxiliaries), all commanded by a total of 167 officers of flag rank (defined as Commodore and above- Commodore being a wartime rank equivalent to the United States Navy rank of Rear Admiral, Lower Half).
He then stated that in the (then) 13 years since VJ Day, the Royal Navy had shrunk to 131 ships (most destroyer-sized or smaller) and 21,000 or so men, but was commanded by 291 flag officers.
Projecting that into the future, he estimated that by the end of the 20th Century, the Royal Navy would have one ship, crewed by two ratings and a CPO, commanded by 1,300 or so officers of Admiral or equivalent rank.
Does anyone know how many flag officers the Royal Navy has at this time?
cheers
eon
eon on December 6, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Well there is a disaster waiting to happen.
Resolute on December 6, 2007 at 9:12 PM
No they aren’t. Any Indian politician who tries to run India as a Hindu state will meet with a bullet faster than csdeven on a Fred! thread (i.e. 1…2…3..4..5..) At least that’s what has happened in the past.
aengus on December 6, 2007 at 9:16 PM
In reality it was 1945 when Attlee came in and squandered Britain’s Marshall Aid to build the welfare state.
No it isn’t all for the best you disgusting human being. If the British people succumb to slavery the cost in universal liberty could be enough to sink Western civillisation for all time. You’re about as American as French cheese.
aengus on December 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM
That last post may have been an overreaction on my part. But its terribly sad that some people think that Britain is just another ally to be discarded whenever its convenient (Serbs, Israelis, Vietnamese etc.)
aengus on December 6, 2007 at 9:47 PM
This is really-really bad news guys. We are already in another cold war with Russia, and now we have an ever more powerfull China to boot. We needed the Brit navy before to help us counter the Red threat. We will need them even more now.
conservnut on December 6, 2007 at 10:33 PM
The loss of Britain will be seen as a much bigger blow to the West, and in more ways, a generation from now than it appears today.
That said, the fact is that in the West, the US is a stallion among geldings.
Lancer on December 6, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Just for the sake of perspective…
According to another Telegraph article, the RN now is able to field:
25 destroyers/frigates
9 submarines
16 mine warfare ships
5 offshore patrol vessels
6 tankers
3 logistics landing ships
2 assault ships
3 aircraft carriers
4 auxiliary helicopter support ships
A total of 73 ships – in the whole blinkin’ Royal Navy.
For comparison, a U. S. Navy carrier group consists of:
1 Nimitz-class nuclear supercarrier
1 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser
2-3 guided missile destroyers or frigates
1 Supply-class combat logistics ship (combined tanker, ammunition and stores supply)
1-2 Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines
Five to seven combatant ships, plus a supply ship. And we have up to nine of these formations at sea at any given time. Add in six or seven amphibious assault groups*…
* – 1 Tarawa-class amphibious assault ship, 1 San Antonio-class landing ship (dock), three destroyers/frigates and a supply ship.
Rusty Bill on December 6, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Rule Britania! Britania
rulesruled the waves!Britons
neverever will be slaves!(I say this with regret as an Anglophile who did both my postgraduate degrees in England.)
Tzetzes on December 7, 2007 at 8:31 AM
And bewail the demographic situation in England: the only people having babies are Mahometans and Chavs.
(Still, there’s always Scotland & Wales.)
Tzetzes on December 7, 2007 at 8:32 AM
“Don’t tell me about naval tradition…it’s all rum, sodomy and the lash” Sir Winston Churchill
sabbott on December 7, 2007 at 8:53 AM
1. Why not.
2. Putin would make sense.
3. No.
Ernest on December 7, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Em…in that order?
Rather puts a dark complexion on Master and Commander.
thejackal on December 7, 2007 at 12:43 PM
“Heh! The brits were one (or two) Exocet missles away from losing the Falklands back in the 80s”
But they won!
davod on December 7, 2007 at 2:17 PM