UK Royal Navy Op Tempo....

[rickusn]

Have been looking at obligations, deployment news and force structure. With the current downsizing from 31 surface combatants to 25 is this actually enough even taking into consideration they have withdrawn from STANNAVFORLANT.

Heres what Ive found although it may not be a 100% accurate as some ships news was a coupla months old.

Of 31 vessels:

4 ships in some phase of decommissioning(Cardiff, Glasgow, Newcastle and Norfolk)

2 ships in extended-refit(Edinburgh, Northumberland)

13 at-sea or in-port training/alongside refit(Liverpool, Nottingham, York, Cornwall, Argyll, Chatham, Grafton, Lancaster, Portland, Montrose, St. Albans, Sutherland and Westminster)

12 returning from deployment area/ on station / transiting to deployment area

On station locations:

Far East: Exeter in-transit

Mid-East/Gulf: Somerset and Cumberland returning. Marlborough(relieving Somerset as Gulf patrol ship) and Campbeltown(Now in India) in-transit to.

S. Lant/Falklands: Iron Duke on station and Glouster in-transit

N. Lant/Caribbean: Richmond on station in the Caribbean

STANNAVFORMED: Kent and Monmouth(Some sources say only Monmouth but Kent is still in the midst of a planned four month deployment to this formation)

Returning from Med with Invincible the only operational carrier are Southhampton and Manchester(Which is also the FRE ship).

Illustrious just working up after an extended refit and Ark Royal has entered into a two year extended refit.

None of the three amphibious ships(Ocean, Albion, Bulwark is at the moment assigned an escort.

In a High Threat environment the Carriers(assume 2) would have four escorts each and the planned two amphibious groups 2 escorts each. That accounts for 12 surface combatants.

Is 13 surface comabatants enough to cover the other four patrol areas and the one possibly two NATO Standing Naval Forces ie Med and Atlantic?

Considering/Assuming a 1 deployed, 1 in training and one in refit ratio for each obligation.

Also consider that three of the five obligation areas have two ships now deployed in them.

And there is talk of reducing this farther still to 22 surface combatants.

It seems to me that the RN is stretched pretty thin. Dopping out of STANNAVFORLANT being one result. Will there be further reductions in obligations?

I understand that their carrier and amphibious battle groups arent working up with or deploying with the # of ships that would be assigned during wartime. Unlike the USN normally does.

Bringing up the point and I paraphrase "that you fight like you train" or is it "that you train like you fight"? Or does it matter?

Thanks for your thoughts. Rick

Happy Thanksgiving to all in the US. And a BIG THANKYOU to all around the world that support us and/or are our friends.

[ChrisF202]

The MoD has gone mad, they need to increase funding and stop all this garbage or else they may not be a British military one day.

[ajaybhutani]

The MoD has gone mad, they need to increase funding and stop all this garbage or else they may not be a British military one day.

the govt has many more priorities than just defence.

[Veni Vidi Vici]

the govt has many more priorities than just defence.

If you get attacked your other priorities don't do you much good eh? Especialy with them siding with the US in Iraq. Defense should be a very high priority if its not already.

[Bluey67]

the govt has many more priorities than just defence.

Yes like pissing away billions of £'s on ID cards, giving benefits/housing to "asylum seekers" and lazy people who just don't want to work for a living, bless 'em, propping up an unworkable socialist health system, subsidising French farmers etc etc etc.......We really have got our priorities in order haven't we!

[Veni Vidi Vici]

Yes like pissing away billions of £'s on ID cards, giving benefits/housing to "asylum seekers" and lazy people who just don't want to work for a living, bless 'em, propping up an unworkable socialist health system, subsidising French farmers etc etc etc.......We really have got our priorities in order haven't we!

I can see your a diplomatic one.

[ajaybhutani]

If you get attacked your other priorities don't do you much good eh? Especialy with them siding with the US in Iraq. Defense should be a very high priority if its not already.

attacked by whom??
1. They have build very good relations with the EU members and none of the European countries is gonna attack them.
2. Russians are in their own mess from the disintegration and thouhg powerful but are in no position to attack britain.
3. They ahve nukes which makes it virtually impossible for any other nation to attack them.
What do they need to defend themselves from??

[dave angel]

we have 200 500kt nukes on trident D4 submarine launched ballistic missiles, exactly who is proposing to knock on our door?

the US looks very unwilling to attack iran or north korea who at most have a handful of nukes on tactical delivery systems, if the most powerful country in the world baulks at attacking 3rd world countries with that capability who could think could attack us?

yes the navy is probably to small as is the rest of our military given the number of operational deployments they are involved in, but to suggest that the UK is vunerable to military attack is laughable.

[Martin]

Yes like pissing away billions of £'s on ID cards, giving benefits/housing to "asylum seekers" and lazy people who just don't want to work for a living, bless 'em, propping up an unworkable socialist health system, subsidising French farmers etc etc etc.......We really have got our priorities in order haven't we!

here here!!

[sw55]

we have 200 500kt nukes on trident D4 submarine launched ballistic missiles, exactly who is proposing to knock on our door?.

You have to admit, he does have a point here...

[Veni Vidi Vici]

but to suggest that the UK is vunerable to military attack is laughable.

So said the Americans pre 9/11.

[Jay]

So said the Americans pre 9/11.

Right on !!!

[dave angel]

So said the Americans pre 9/11.

which is why i very deliberately said 'military' attack.

terrorism (and i draw a distinction between the war on terrorists - as a specific group of individuals - and the war on terrorism - as a chosen method of acheiving political ends) can't be beaten by nukes, but host nations can be shown that supporting it can be a very bad idea.

militarily, the UK is invunerable, even the US - by an order of magnitude the most powerful force the planet has ever seen - could not attack the UK without the inevitability of the most horrendous losses. our assets could be destroyed, our airfields turned to rubble, but no government on the face of the earth would be prepared to suffer the kind of losses that the UK's nuclear deterent can inflict.

but yes, we are, as all open societies are, vunerable to terrorism. that won't change while we hold human life precious.

[Officer of Engineers]

It was not that long ago (and within my service time) that we stood ready to lobe nukes at one another. Conventionally on both sides of the Iron Curtain, we had to give our REMF masters the excuse not to use nukes (which unfortunately forces the other side to use nukes).

Today? Nobody is pissed off enough at the Brits to lobe a nuke. However, North Korea is certainly willing and the Chinese are bluffing to toss nukes at American assets in Asia.

[dave angel]

it ties in with a debate going on within the naval warfare forum: when is the use of nukes not enough to provoke a nuclear reaction...

realisticly, only the british mainland is secured by britains' nuclear deterent. its very unlikely that we would nuke argentina over a new invasion of the falklands, if a british warship were to be nuked in the persian gulf or pacific i don't think we'd level tehran or bejing - some things just aren't worth the deaths of 300,000 civilians.